Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LUTON CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON LOCAL RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WELLAND AND NENE (EMPINGHAM RESERVOIR) AND MID-NORTHAMPTONSHIRE WATER BILL (By Order)

WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

District Heating

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Power if he will consult with the Minister of Housing and Loal Government on the use of refuse disposal incinerators to heat whole towns or large districts within towns; and if he will ensure that nationalised fuel industries co-operate where appropriate to establish more extensive use of whole town or district heating systems.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): Total energy and district heating schemes, incorporating refuse incineration, are certainly developments which we wish to encourage, wherever technically and economically viable. We are considering the possibilities of greater co-operation between fuel industries, developers and local authorities, and are in touch with other Departments on the subject.

Mr. Roberts: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Nottingham scheme is likely to still be operative in 1970? What active steps are being taken to encourage other local authorities to use district heating schemes based on refuse disposal? Would he agree that any scheme which led to a reduction of the £70 million a year which we spend on refuse disposal would be helpful?

Mr. Freeson: The second part of my hon. Friend's Question is for the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Certainly we as a Department wish to encourage this kind of development and are in touch with that Ministry on the issue. I understand that in Nottingham negotiations are now proceeding in which the N.C.B. and, no doubt, other interested persons and bodies are involving themselves with a view to embarking on a district heating scheme incorporating refuse incineration.

Nationalised Industries (Connection Charges)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps to stop the usage of connecting charges as an instrument of competitive marketing by the nationalised fuel industries.

Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is discussing with the Electricity and Gas Councils the systems of connection charges used by the two industries.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the time for discussion of this matter is now well-nigh over and that the essence of public ownership is replacement of undesirable competition by healthy co-operation? Would he not take some urgent steps to avoid the undesirable use of connecting charges by some boards as a weapon in this field?

Mr. Freeson: I hope that the review of this matter is well-nigh over and that soon we shall be able to get a conclusion satisfactory to all persons and industries concerned.

Sir J. Eden: Why has this matter taken so long? Did not the Government make clear that they were reviewing it at the time when the 1965 White Paper on policy was published? Could not the hon. Gentleman give a general direction to the boards concerned, or, better still, leave this matter to their commercial judgment?

Mr. Freeson: This is a rather complex subject which did not arise in 1965 but was developing over a number of years before then. We are making a serious study of the problem, and we think we shall find an answer soon which will obviate a general need for such a direction and at the same time meet the needs of the industries from an economic and commercial point of view.

Ports (Oil Imports)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from the oil industry objecting to the Government's proposals for nationalising the ports; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Freeson: Quite a number, and the Ministry of Transport will shortly reply to them in detail.

Mr. Ridley: As one of the principal customers of the ports has objected to the scheme for nationalisation because it will make charges much more expensive, will the Minister have a word with the Minister of Transport and suggest that he drop this ridiculous scheme?

Mr. Freeson: This is a matter which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will be replying to. Questions on this matter should be directed to him.

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Power what is the estimated percentage of the volume of imported oil products which will pass through ports due for nationalisation under the Bill proposing a National Ports Authority; and whether he will consult with the Minister of Transport to ensure that adequate provision is made for such imports.

Mr. Freeson: Over 95 per cent. of United Kingdom crude oil and product imports pass through ports which are due to be reorganised under the National Ports Authority. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is well aware of the importance of such imports.

Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the industry is seriously considering using ports which are not in this area, and will he give an undertaking that the Minister of Transport will not extend the scheme if the oil industries decide that it is better to use a private enterprise port rather than a nationalised one?

Mr. Freeson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not using an occasion such as this to introduce threats against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I suggest that he direct his attention and his Questions to that Minister

Meter Reading

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Power what progress has been made with the feasibility studies of the possible use of one meter reader for both gas and electricity.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Minister of Power what progress he has made in his discussions regarding the use of one meter reader where appropriate for both gas and electricity; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Power whether he intends to implement the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report to amalgamate the meter reading staffs of the gas councils and electricity boards.

Mr. Freeson: The feasibility studies have been completed. The results will shortly be considered by the Electricity and Gas Councils, to decide whether to extend the studies to field trials, as has been suggested by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in its Report No. 102.

Mr. Dance: Why is there such a long delay? The scheme has been proved to work well in France. It is obvious that one man reading both beters and, with the aid of computers, one bill must be cheaper. The hon. Gentleman must


realise that it would halve the risk of bogus meter readers.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman reads too much into this possibility. I assure him that it is a subject to which I have paid special attention since I have been at the Ministry. I am not persuaded that there is likely to be any major savings as a result of any such exercise in joint management. The N.B.P.I. estimated the figure at about £1½ million without taking into account counterbalancing costs.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there would be not only economic advantage but advantage from a convenience point of view? Householders should not have to stay in to have their meters read when the numbers of calls could be reduced by half.

Mr. Freeson: I assure my hon. Friend that, although I want to abate the enthusiasm of one or two hon. Members opposite on this subject, I am concerned that the matter should be properly studied and field trials will be considered by the two Councils. The matter is being pursued seriously and benefit could accrue from such an exercise.

Mr. Baker: Why has it taken so long for the Ministry to recognise a fact which is self-evident to every householder, namely, that one man could read both meters? The saving of £1½ million estimated by the N.B.P.I. is a substantial one. Should not this saving be made immediately?

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the Report of the National Board, he will find that what the Board has to say on this matter arises largely as a result of the work that the Ministry has been doing on the matter.

Coal-Fired Generating Stations

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Power (1) in view of the difficulties being experienced in the nuclear power programme, if he will consider the further immediate use of low cost coal for power generation until these difficulties have been overcome;

(2) when he will announce his conclusions about the commencement of a

second coal-fired generating station at West Burton.

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Power (1) what representations he has received about the proposed second coal-fired generating station at West Burton; and what reply he has given to them;

(2) when he expects to announce his decision on the construction by the Central Electricity Generating Board of a further coal-fired power station.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Power if he will give further consideration to the use of low-cost coal for power generation, having regard to the difficulties which have arisen in the nuclear power programme.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): Experience to date with the nuclear power programme gives no grounds for changing existing policies. The Central Electricity Generating Board has no immediate plans for a further coal-fired station but the possibility will be kept under review in the light of the policy described in paragraph 98 of the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd. 3438). In fact, I saw a delegation from the Nottinghamshire County Council on 18th December and I am sending it my comments on the memorandum it submitted to me about a second power station at West Burton.

Mr. Ashton: I thank my right hon. Friend for sending the memorandum to the county council. Is he aware that it is three years since the last coal-fired power station was ordered by the C.E.G.B.? Is he further aware that the N.C.B. is putting in what I believe to be a record low bid for the second power station at Drax? Due to nuclear difficulties at South Dakota in America, they are now going back to fossil fuels. Further, will he take—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question must be brief, even from a new Member.

Mr. Mason: I am aware—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Ashton: It is due to banding five Questions together that I have to ask this super-supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend further aware—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mason.

Mr. Mason: I have forgotten all the questions now. I am aware of how long it has been since a coal-fired station was ordered. There are 20,000 megawatts of coal-fired stations either being commissioned or under construction at present, and by 1975 at least 74 per cent. of all power generation will still be from coal.
On the second major point, about the Chairman of the National Coal Board having made a record low offer, no offer has been made to the C.E.G.B. and no offer has been made to the Ministry of Power. Public contracting in this way can cause annoyance, can be misleading, and does not satisfy anyone.

Mr. Marquand: With reference to my right hon. Friend's point about the deputation from Nottinghamshire, what, if any, factual miscalculations were there in the very solid and reasonably based representations which the Nottinghamshire County Council put before him?

Mr. Mason: I cannot go into all the details about pence per kW-hour or per unit, the life of generating sets, and so on. No doubt, my hon. Friend will have noted that the C.E.G.B. has now changed the ground rules for nuclear stations, and they will now have a life of 25 years compared with 20 years hitherto, so that nuclear power becomes more competitive still.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend give some consideration to setting up a prototype plant for the fluidised-bed system of coal combustion, as this seems likely to revolutionise the use of coal as a low-cost fuel?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate later Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend has jumped out of bed too soon. There are at least five other Questions on that topic.

Sir J. Eden: Since the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the C.E.G.B. has changed the ground rules, would it not have been more proper if in answering the debate on Friday he had drawn the attention of the House to that matter?

Mr. Mason: I did answer Questions during the week. It would not have been possible on that occasion, when the hon. Gentleman himself left me very little time to reply to a whole day's debate.

Nationalised Industries (Green Paper)

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power whether he will arrange for the issue each year of a Green Paper containing commercial and financial forecasts, investment plans, and other relevant information about the nationalised fuel industries.

Mr. Mason: I shall keep in mind this proposal, which has been made in slightly different form by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, but I would remind the hon. Member that a great deal of information is already published by the Government and the industries.

Mr. Lane: I appreciate that, but will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that discussion on fuel matters in the House and elsewhere would be better informed and more up to date if he could produce annually some sort of comprehensive and forward-looking document covering the whole field?

Mr. Mason: I wonder how much information the hon. Gentleman and the House really want. While we have been in office, we seem to have flooded the House with information. Since the Select Committees were established, particularly the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries which examined the possibility of a Minister of nationalised industries, there have been 47 papers submitted to that Committee, and 11 from my Ministry alone.

Energy Advisory Council

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Power when his Energy Advisory Council last met; when it will next meet; what decisions or recommendations it has made in the past 12 months; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mason: In June, 1967. It will next meet on 1st April.

Sir G. Sinclair: But will not the Minister accept that this neglect of the Advisory Council shows that he is not treating it seriously but has made it into


nothing more than a Labour Government gimmick?

Mr. Mason: On the contrary. I am treating it seriously. That is why I do not call upon it when there is no special material for it to discuss. When it comes before me on 1st April, it will be looking at the implications of the economic assessment up to 1972 as it affects the energy sector.

Energy Demand Assumptions

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Power to what extent the estimates in the Fuel Policy White Paper of November, 1967, formed the basis of the energy assumptions embodied in the general economic forecasts published in the Green Paper at the end of February.

Mr. Mason: Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Chapter 8 of the Green Paper describe the assumptions about energy demand used in it.

Sir G. Sinclair: In view of the divergence of the Green and White Papers, does the Minister not see some usefulness in bringing up to date Table D and publishing it annually?

Mr. Mason: Not having in mind precisely what Table D is, all I can say is that there is very little divergence between the Green Paper and the estimates of demand in the Fuel Policy White Paper. They are running fairly well in line.

Sir G. Sinclair: But that is not true for coal.

Mr. Emery: As there is a difference—and the Minister will realise that there is—may we be told which we are now to take as authoritative, the Green or the White Paper?

Mr. Mason: The estimates in the Fuel Policy White Paper and the slight variations in the Green Paper show that nuclear power and North Sea gas are coming on stream a little slower than we expected, coal has recently made a slight revival, and oil is coming in a little faster than we had in mind.

Nationalised Industries (Forward Plans)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Power which years will be covered in his 1969 review of the

nationalised fuel industries' forward plans.

Mr. Mason: The five years 1969–70 to 1973–74.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: How will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the revisions which will become necessary as we improve our knowledge of the avail-ability of North Sea gas?

Mr. Mason: Because I review it every year. I expect to give final approval each year, over a five-year programme, tentative approval for the second year, and then generally for the three years following. It is kept under annual review by myself and my Department.

Nationalised Industries (Investment)

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister of Power whether in future he will offer opportunities for Members of Parliament to participate at some stage in the annual review of investment for the nationalised fuel industries.

Mr. Mason: No, Sir.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be helpful to the Minister to have an informed body of Members of Parliament behind him in his dealings with heads of the nationalised industries?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir. The formulation of policy is my responsibility, and I am answerable to the House. I believe in participation, but that would be ridiculous: 630 Ministers, or—as I imagine the nationalised industries would say—630 more interferers.

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Power on what assumptions about pricing policy he bases his present system of appraising the investment plans of the nationalised fuel industries.

Mr. Mason: Each industry has a pricing policy which takes account of its particular circumstances. It is in the light of that policy, and the views on pricing expressed in Cmnd. 3437, that I appraise the industry's investment plans.

Mr. Alison: What will the Minister's policy be towards the recommendation published by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries that his industry should adopt long-run marginal cost pricing for new investments?

Mr. Mason: We have not determined policy on that yet. The marginal cost pricing policy is certainly under consideration, but with the background of the White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, in mind.

Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the implications of the recent decision to extend the effective life of the A.G.R. stations? Does not that significantly affect the investment priorities for power stations generally?

Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. There will have to be fresh consideration, as they have now been given 25 years' life instead of 20.

Sir J. Eden: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study Lord Robens's recent offer of coal in 1975 at 3½d. a term? Will he confirm that this would be on the basis of marginal costing?

Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I say. I said in answer to an earlier Question that no specific offer has been made by the Chairman of the National Coal Board. Therefore, the public comment about a record low offer is about an offer that does not yet exist as far as we are concerned.

Solar Power

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Power what research he is supporting into the utilisation of solar power for industry.

Mr. Freeson: None, Sir. Some research in this field is being supported by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that some interesting results have been obtained at Wallasey and in the Pyrenees in space-heating and specialised smelting? In view of the rapid technological developments coming from the space programme in energy conversion devices, is not this a field in which we could at least play a larger part than at present?

Mr. Freeson: I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to the matter. I am aware of the school in Wallasey which has been using solar heat, for 16 or 16 years now, I believe, and I understand that it has done so effectively. However, I am not so cer-

tain that the economics of such developments would be sound in this climate.

Steel

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Power what is the current level of steel production in 1968–69; how much steel continues to be imported in 1968–69; what imports reduction is planned; and whether he will make a statement on steel imports substitution.

Mr. Mason: The current rate of crude steel production is about 27½ million tons a year. Steel imports have been rising for some years and totalled 2·1 million tons in 1968, including material for hire-rolling and subsequent re-export. This upward trend is expected to be checked in 1969.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman now abandon his position of neutrality over the proposed increase in the price of steel by 9 per cent. to 10 per cent., the effect of which would be to militate against the use of home-produced steel and in favour of imported steel?

Mr. Mason: There is no question of neutrality. The matter is not before me but before the N.B.P.I.

Mr. Ogden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the motor car industry, for example, imports a large quantity of steel from Holland and other European countries which cannot be produced here at home? Will he make inquiries into why we cannot produce all the kinds of steel British industry requires?

Mr. Mason: When there is a great upsurge in demand, as in recent times, it is not possible for our steel industry to satisfy all domestic demand.

Mr. Tinn: asked the Minister of Power how many steelworkers on Teesside are working part time because of a shortage of steel.

Mr. Mason: I understand that the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation has now written to my hon. Friend about this.

Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a very substantial number of workers affected in my constituency feel bitterly about working short time


when the country is having to import steel? They put the responsibility fairly and squarely on the bad planning of the private industry, which they look to the British Steel Corporation speedily to rectify.

Mr. Mason: I am sorry that one or two plants should be suffering like this, but it depends upon their products, which may not be the type we are importing. But my hon. Friend is right in blaming the inheritance of the badly planned private steel industry. This will, in the short term, cause difficulty in a number of plants, but I hope that it will be quickly resolved.

Mr. Emery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a Question is down for Answer we like to know what the Answer is, and that the fact that the Answer is in a private letter to an hon. Member is quite irrelevant at Question Time? Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us how many steel workers on Tees-side are working part time because of the shortage?

Mr. Mason: The simple answer is that I do not know.

Nationalised Industries (Performance)

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Power what are his present methods of comparing performance with forecast year by year for each of the nationalised fuel industries; and what changes he proposes to make in those methods.

Mr. Mason: I make such inquiries as seem to be necessary into the reasons for differences between forecasts and performance, in full consultation with the industry's management.

Mr. Shaw: Would not it be helpful if such inquiries as the Minister made, and their results, were published, particularly with regard to forecasts and results, returns on capital, the levels of productivity and profitability generally?

Mr. Mason: I notice that that was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and we did not particularly answer it. As I indicated earlier in Question Time, we give a large amount of information to the House, through White Papers, the annual reports of the

nationalised industries and the material we provide for Select Committees. It is not really necessary to go further.

Nationalised Industries (Overseas Loan)

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Power whether, in view of Her Majesty's Government's new policy on financing of nationalised industries, he plans to raise a loan in an overseas market for the nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

Mr. Mason: Under the statutes it is the nationalised industries concerned which raise loans of this kind. The hon. Member will be aware that the Gas Council is exercising its powers under Section 4 of the Gas and Electricity Act, 1968, by borrowing 300 million deutsche-marks, which is about £30 million, on the German market.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that many people in this country will be resentful that the German investing public now have a chance to invest in North Sea gas? If he devised a form of equity participation, sufficient money would be forthcoming in this country for all his capital requirements. Before he embarks on the rôle of international financier, may I ask him to appreciate that if the Deutschemark is revalued the guarantee that the Treasury has given today could be the most expensive the British taxpayer has ever had to bear.

Mr. Mason: It is through the co-operation of the Treasury that this has been made possible. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes such a narrow-minded attitude about it. The balance of payments will benefit by it, and the Gas Council is pleased to adopt this method.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not it an extraordinary development that we are borrowing such a large sum of money for a nationalised industry? How soon will it be before we go to Germany and ask for money to finance the Army and Navy?

Mr. Mason: I am not interested in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. The Gas Council thinks that this is a good thing. I applaud it, and there is no reason why we should not take advantage of it.

Power Stations (Natural Gas Purchases)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power what directive he has given to the Central Electricity Generating Board about the purchase of natural gas, on normal commercial terms, from the gas industry for burning in power stations.

Mr. Mason: None, Sir. Proposals for fuelling power stations with natural gas will be considered on their merits in the light of the policy described in the Fuel Policy White Paper (Cmnd.3438).

Mr. Palmer: It has been widely stated that some guidance has been given to the electricity supply industry in this matter. Is that the case?

Mr. Mason: In the investigations into the possibility of North Sea gas powering power stations there has been an experiment at Hams Hill which proved successful. The C.E.G.B. would have liked to convert the whole station but I have not given permission because of the difficulties of the coal industry at the moment.

Mr. Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman, however, state what his view generally is about using a primary fuel for generation of secondary fuel?

Mr. Mason: It is entirely unnecessary at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS

Natural Gas

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the growing number of complaints from members of the public that their gas bills have increased since conversion to natural gas; what action he proposes taking to curb this inflationary trend; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: Most of these complaints arise from misunderstanding accounts, but in a few cases, being rectified by the boards, faulty adjustment during conversion has led to excessive use of gas.

Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the disturbingly large number of faulty conversions are responsible for these increases? Is he aware that the public thought originally that

natural gas would lead to smaller bills, whereas now the first bills are coming in and they are increased?

Mr. Freeson: I should not generalise from the experience which has given rise to this Question. In most instances where natural gas has come on stream there have been reductions in price. We have discussed this before. There are bound to be difficulties initially, but wherever they have been experienced they have been overcome.

Mr. Marks: While gas boards are correct in saying that natural gas is more efficient and cheaper than town gas, is my hon. Friend aware that faulty conversions, which are the cause of most of these complaints, are probably due to the fact that the men who carry out the conversions are inadequately trained and that the hours of work are far too long for efficient service? Will he ask the gas boards to consider their method of contracting out this work and doing it themselves?

Mr. Freeson: I assure my hon. Friend that we have been in touch with the gas boards concerned and with the Gas Council. I have visited a number of areas where conversion has been initiated. That there have been difficulties no one will deny, but they should not be exaggerated. In the vast majority of cases there has been no difficulty at all, but there is a sizeable minority of cases where difficulties have arisen. The boards themselves are aware of the problem and are reorganising where necessary.

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Power on how many occasions North Sea gas has found its way into pipelines still distributing town gas; how many accidents to persons and to equipment have resulted from these occurrences; and what steps he is taking to ensure greater safety to the consumer.

Mr. Freeson: Thirty-nine occasions. No accidents resulted.

Mr. Emery: Will the Minister try to ensure that this is more widely known? At present it is frequently suggested in the Press and generally that when there is an accident or explosion involving plant it is because of the change to North Sea gas. It is most important for


the consumer to realise that there has been no damage or fatality.

Mr. Freeson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been some confusion on the matter in the public mind and in the Press. It has arisen because of some instances during conversion programmes when a certain amount of natural gas has escaped into the existing complex. There has been no damage in any of those instances, and the situation has been corrected very quickly. There have been no accidents as a result of those instances.

Prices

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Power whether he intends to accept the proposal contained in the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report No. 102 on Gas Prices that the gas industry should be relieved of the legal restraint regarding undue preference in its pricing policy.

Mr. Mason: I am considering the proposal.

Mr. Moyle: When is my right hon. Friend likely to reach a decision? Further, does he agree that the concept is so vague as to give little protection to the public while providing a psychological and marginal handicap to the gas industry in its competitive position?

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the restraints which it places upon the Gas Council, from which the Council has already sought relief, as well as of the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board. It depends on the progress made in the preparation of the gas reorganisation Bill, which might prove a suitable opportunity.

North Sea Gas (Coal Equivalent)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Power what coal equivalent is represented by estimated North Sea gas of £15 million landed in 1968–69, £36 million in 1969–70 and £62 million in 1970–71; what part of total contracts for North Sea gas these landings represent; what further contracts ad valorem a year for North Sea gas are still to be made; and whether he will make a statement on progress to date.

Mr. Freeson: About 4, 10 and 18 million tons of coal equivalent respectively. Supplies under present 25-year contracts are expected to rise to about 40 million tons of coal equivalent a year by 1975. Contracts for further supplies, equivalent to 3 to 4 million tons a year, have still to be signed.

Sir G. Nabarro: Do those figures represent an accelerated run-down of the coal mines, or is the position as it was when the abortive White Paper was published and subsequently withdrawn?

Mr. Freeson: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop talking nonsense about the White Paper. As we have stated time and again in the House and elsewhere, it never has been withdrawn. In reply to his question about the effect on the coal industry, there is no reason for us to change our judgment in the White Paper that the impact of natural gas supplies will be chiefly in the area of the oil industry and not coal.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Interest Rate (Customers' Deposits)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Power if he will seek power to vary the 4 per cent. interest rate laid down in Section 71 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899.

Mr. Mason: No, Sir, I do not think this is necessary.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the Minister aware that, before a new customer is accepted and given supplies, where he may require large quantities of electricity a substantial deposit has to be made? Therefore, is the Minister satisfied that rates of interest prevailing in 1899 are realistic today?

Mr. Mason: I am not aware that it is causing any difficulties. The boards are entitled to pay more if they wish to do so, and some boards do.

Demand

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power what average annual rate of growth of electricity demand occurred over the last five years; and upon what


annual rate of growth he is planning for the next five years.

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Power what is the estimated annual percentage growth of the maximum demand on the Central Electricity Generating Board system, adjusted to average cold-spell weather conditions, over the next five years.

Mr. Freeson: The Electricity Council's recently adopted forecast for the six years up to 1974–75 implies an average annual rate of growth of simultaneous maximum demand of 5·8 per cent. This compares with an average annual increase, adjusted to average cold spell weather conditions, over the period 1962–63 and 1968–69 of 4 per cent.

Mr. Ridley: Will the Parliamentary Secretary pay tribute to the Opposition for having persuaded him to reduce the over-expensive plans of the electricity supply industry? How much capacity is it planned to provide in 1974–75 to meet the demand of 53,000 megawatts which is now the target?

Mr. Freeson: I cannot give full details on the last point. The forecast of maximum demand for 1974–75 is 53,000 megawatts. If the hon. Gentleman wants specific details about investment programming, no doubt he will communicate with us or table further Questions. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to pursue too closely the question of over-investment. What we have been experiencing in recent years is the result of decisions taken long before the Labour Government came to power.

Mr. Alison: What will be the new margin of spare generating capacity in the light of the downward revision? Will it be lower than the present 21 per cent. margin?

Mr. Freeson: The target remains at 17 per cent.

Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rate of growth last year in terms of units of electricity consumed was 8·6 per cent.? Therefore, would it not be very dangerous, looking to the future, to cut back too much on electricity plant investment?

Mr. Freeson: I certainly accept that. We do not think that this is what is

likely to take place. The figure I gave of 5 8 per cent. was an average spread over a period.

Wales

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Minister of Power what progress he has made in his plans for the reorganisation of the electricity industry in Wales.

Mr. Mason: I shall inform the House of my conclusions on the organisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales as soon as I have completed my review.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread expectation in Wales that when the electricity industry is reorganised Wales will be treated as an entity for the purposes of both generation and distribution, with a national Board and a headquarters in Wales? Does he realise that in Welsh affairs Welsh opinion should be paramount?

Mr. Mason: I am aware of the demands, though I am not satisfied that they make sense. If it came about, this arrangement for a Welsh power board would be to the disadvantage of Wales and would not provide efficiency in generation and distribution of electricity for the country as a whole.

Mr. Ridley: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to be able to inform the House of the results of the review in both England and Wales?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give a date, but I hope quite soon.

Generating Capacity

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Power what is the margin between the maximum recorded demand on the electricity grid system for the present winter so far and the total of generating plant and interrelated transmission capacity available and ready to supply that demand at the time it occurred.

Mr. Freeson: The daily availability of generating plant varies and is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The maximum demand for the winter so far has been 37,735 MW.

Mr. Palmer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the C.E.G.B. gave these much more realistic figures on the different amounts of capacity available it would be very much in its interest?

Mr. Freeson: I have stated the gross margin available this winter previously to the House. The latest estimate is that it stands at 19 per cent.

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Power what will be the total cost to the Central Electricity Generating Board of installing 65,200 megawatts of electricity capacity by 1973–74.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Power how much capital it will cost to increase electricity capacity to 54,000 megawatts by 1973–74.

Mr. Freeson: Last year's investment programme of the electricity boards in England and Wales related to a forecast load of 54,000 MW in 1973–74 and was estimated to cost about £2,400 million in the period 1969–70 to 1973–74 of which about £1,500 million was for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The investment programme will be reviewed in the light of the Electricity Council's recent load forecast.

Mr. Shaw: In view of the recent forecast, and the reduction in the levels forecast in it, would the right hon. Gentleman say how much the estimated excess capacity over the 17 per cent. margin is likely to cost?

Mr. Freeson: Not without notice. I repeat that the responsibility for any over-estimating must lie with the Government that preceded us.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister aware that on the figures he has given this afternoon he has reduced electricity capacity by 18,000 megawatts by 1974–75, which represents a saving of £400 million to the public purse, for which he should be grateful to the Opposition?

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman chooses to repeat himself on this matter, I must repeat that he was a supporter of a Government which prepared the over-investment that he is so busy criticising these days.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Fluidised Bed Combustion

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Power what assistance his Department is giving to the National Coal Board in the development and application of the fluidised bed system of coal combustion.

Mr. Mason: My Advisory Council on Research and Development drew attention some years ago to the fluidised bed system of coal combusion as being worth investigation. My Department, through the Council, has since then encouraged and continues to encourage the National Coal Board in its efforts to determine the potential of this new technique of coal combustion.

Mr. Speed: Does the Minister consider that this is a technological break-through by the National Coal Board? If so, will not it increase coal's share of the total energy market in the 1970s?

Mr. Mason: It is much too early to say that it is a technological break-through, although at this stage it is encouraging. If it succeeds, it will certainly help the sale of coal.

Mr. Eadie: My right hon. Friend has confirmed to the House that the nuclear industry has amended its financial policy to make it more competitive. Does he agree that here we are discussing a technological development in the utilisation of coal which will make the coal industry and the National Coal Board competitive without any financial manipulation?

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend must remember that the Central Electricity Generating Board always errs on the side of caution and safety. We have developed a nuclear industry that is perhaps the safest in the world, we have more experience than anyone else in the world in the peaceful generation of nuclear energy, and we have been selling stations abroad. One of the ground rules was that the stations had a 20-year life. Now they have a 25-year life, which is a sensible and logical step. It is not for my hon. Friend to start charging the industry with what he probably thinks is a trick because at the same time fluidised bed combustion techniques may


be feasible. A technological break-through does not exist, but the development is encouraging, and I hope that it succeeds.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Power what assessment he has made of the fluidised bed system of coal combustion for electricity generation recently proposed by the British Coal Utilisation Research Association and the National Coal Board, particularly with regard to cost per unit and capital costs; and what changes he envisages in fuel policy as a result.

Mr. Mason: The work on the fluidised bed combustion of coal is aimed at providing the engineering data required for detailed design and cost studies of novel boiler plant. It will not be possible to make any worthwhile assessment of the impact of this new technique upon the cost of electricity generation based upon coal or to determine what influence it might have upon the pattern of power generation in this country until these studies have been completed. I look forward to the results of these studies with great interest.

Mr. Cronin: As this revolutionary system of consuming coal may well help enormously the profits of the coal industry, is it not desirable to set up a prototype plant for using this form of combustion as soon as possible?

Mr. Mason: There are two aspects. The first, and smaller, is the development of an industrial boiler with this new technique. I understand that the prototype will be at one of the research establishments quite soon this year. The second aspect is to try to find a technique for power generation. We shall not be able to evaluate the data until later this year, and that will determine how much money should be spent on further research to develop it.

Derivatives

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a further statement on the development of coal derivates.

Mr. Freeson: There is continuing research and development work by the National Coal Board to get maximum benefit from coal derivatives, and associated work is done by the British Coal

Utilization Research, Coke Research and Coal Tar Research Associations. An account of the lines of research and progress made is given in the latest annual reports of the Board and the associations.

Mr. Eadie: May I appeal to my hon. Friend to set up a committee to reinvestigate the technology of this, since it was in the 1950s that this matter was last thoroughly investigated?

Mr. Freeson: I do not think there is need. The work which is being done is in capable hands and there is no need for a Ministry committee to be set up.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF HEALTH

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Minister of Health from among the Members of the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): There is no need, Sir. The functions of the Minister of Health were transferred on 1st November, 1968, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is a Member of this House.

Mr. Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware that, for the first time in living memory, there is no senior Minister with exclusive responsibility for health matters sitting in the House of Commons? Is not this indicative of the priority which the Government are giving to the modernisation of the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There is a still more senior Minister in the Cabinet responsible for these matters, and he is a Member of this House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman raised this point about senior Ministers in the Commons and in another place, since under the Government which he supported there sat in another place one Foreign Secretary, four Commonwealth Secretaries, one Minister of Defence, one Minister of Power, one Minister of Education, one Secretary of State for Air and four First Lords of the Admiralty.

Lord Balniel: As the National Health Service is perhaps one of the major public spending Departments of State and as many matters of importance to constituents, medical staff and patients have to be raised here, is it not right that the


Minister specifically responsible for health should be answerable to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that this sort of question should be raised by hon. Members opposite. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services, who is responsible for all these matters, is also a member of the Cabinet. Not all Ministers of Health have been in the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend is responsible to the House of Commons and he is taking a close personal interest in the question of the modernisation of the National Health Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISABILITIES AND HANDICAPS (APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY)

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek powers to establish a joint unpaid committee of medical doctors, technologists, industrialists and recognised representatives of the disabled or handicapped to consider the best and quickest application of technology for each disability or handicap, to give a measure of relief and independence to such people; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of applying technology for the benefit of the disabled and handicapped. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services already has advice from a wide range of expert organisations in this field.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of technologists feel that much more could be done for disabled people and are willing to give their services as their contribution to the social services? Would it not be wise to accept them and let them work in an equal capacity for the disabled with medical people, other specialist technologists and the disabled themselves?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the objective but I am not sure that a committee is the right way to deal with this. There are so many different problems to investigate. For example, at Stoke Mandeville a tremendous amount has been done, partly on a remunerated basis and partly voluntary, using modern technology. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the Biochemical Research and

Development Unit at Roehampton and the Scientific and Technical Branch of the Department of Health and Social Security. A great deal is going on in this field and it is better co-ordinated by the Department itself, particularly as it receives all sorts of representations on all these problems from disabled persons' organisations.

Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in addition to the points made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), the British Medical Association in a recent report drew attention to the standard of aids provided for the disabled at the moment and the lack of technological progress as well as to its administration and the shortage of detailed statistical information? What is being done about these three points made by the B.M.A.?

The Prime Minister: That supplementary question would be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is a Member of this House. I should like to look into the question of statistical information which the right hon. Gentleman has raised to see whether more information—of which there is a great deal—can-not be made available. One of the subjects covered in the report was artificial and powered limbs. There are two advisory committees here which are giving valuable guidance on the application of technology to the problems of limbless persons. At Aldermaston, I believe it is, a great deal of technological work is also going on for helping thalidomide babies.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (SPEECH)

Mr. Henig: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Homchurch on Great Britain's relations with France on 22nd February represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Henig: Now that the recriminations of the "Soames affair" have died down, has my right hon. Friend some plan for improving relationships between Britain and France? Is he aware that


this is essential if he is to succeed in his bid to get this country into the European Community?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which was very fully debated rather less than a month ago. My right hon. Friend and I have answered Questions since. I think that I have answered Questions put by my hon. Friend. We are, of course, most desirous to improve relations with France by talks at all levels.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: How long does the Prime Minister think it will be before General de Gaulle is willing to speak to him again?

The Prime Minister: I have no information to suggest that he has at any time been more willing than at other times to speak to me. I had some very rewarding discussions with him at Versailles not very long ago, and on the question raised by my hon. Friend, entry to the Common Market, I did not find his views very encouraging.

Mr. Heath: It has been reported, on this particular question of relations with France, that President de Gaulle told Dr. Kiesinger at their recent meeting that he no longer had any intention of attending W.E.U. or sending representatives of his country there. Can the Prime Minister say whether Dr. Kiesinger has communicated this to him?

The Prime Minister: I have had no official confirmation of this story—I think that it was a newspaper report which the right hon. Gentleman was quoting. In what I have heard about these talks no such information has reached me. Were there to be confirmation of it, I would take an opportunity of letting the right hon. Gentleman know.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for visiting Scotland officially in the next six months.

The Prime Minister: I intend to undertake visits to Scotland this year, Sir, bur no firm plans have yet been made.

Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend make sure that he gives full pub-

licity to all of the quite outstanding achievements of the Government in Scotland since they came to office? [Interruption.] Secondly, before he goes will he read a document recently produced by the Scottish Council on the increased and increasing centralisation of industrial decision-making of all kinds in London, and the remedies proposed to solve that particular problem?

The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to read that. With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he will be aware that I did something of this on my last visit to Scotland in December. I should be very happy, particularly since hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to see these achievements publicised, to answer any supplementary questions with regard to the record of this Government over the last four and a half years, compared with the previous four and a half years, whether in advance factories, industrial development certificates, aid in bringing work to Scotland, slum clearance, house building, school building, further education or unemployment.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: When the Prime Minister does visit Scotland, will he investigate a serious matter, namely why there has been a net loss of 35,000 jobs in Scotland in the last four years, whereas there was a net gain of 30,000 jobs during the four years 1960–64, according to the Government's own White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I should be very glad to go into the migration figures with my right hon. Friend—

Hon. Members: Jobs.

The Prime Minister: As to unemployment, which is the best measure of the—

Hon. Members: Jobs.

The Prime Minister: People who lose their jobs usually become unemployed. As to the unemployment figure, the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the latest figure, for February, seasonally adjusted, is lower than that recorded for the whole period from June, 1962, to August, 1964, covering the greater part of the 11th to the 13th years in office of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend be sure to visit Lanarkshire, where he will discover that there is a very serious shortage of skilled craftsmen? Is he aware that this is a complete contradiction to the state of affairs in 1963, when in Lanarkshire we had 19,500 unemployed?

The Prime Minister: When I visited Scotland last year I had the privilege, when I went to Lanarkshire, of seeing one of the most encouraging things that I have seen anywhere in Britain, and that was the training centre for training additional craftsmen to meet the growing demand in the Lanarkshire area.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister answer the specific question as to why there have been 35,000 fewer jobs in the four years of his Administration, compared with 30,000 more jobs in the last four years of Conservative administration? There is no point in referring to the unemployment figure, because obviously if people emigrate from Scotland at the rate they were doing two years ago there are bound to be fewer people there to be unemployed. It is the number of jobs that matters.

The Prime Minister: I shall be very glad to look into the job figures, and to give them to the right hon. Gentleman. I will also give the right hon. Gentleman what is most relevant to this, the amount of new factory development, the number of new jobs created by this Government, which was at a rate 112 per cent. higher, in terms of floor space—[Interruption.]—and 54 per cent. higher in terms of jobs—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the Battle of Bannockburn.

The Prime Minister: The figures that I am giving the right hon. Gentleman show that in the past four years industrial development certificates account for an increase of 54 per cent. in the number of jobs created compared with the four years under right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what new proposals have been received from the illegal

régime in Rhodesia since new constitutional plans were published by that régime.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 4th March.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that the illegal régime has issued something in the nature of an ultimatum to Her Majesty's Government—that if agreement is not reached before May, then no agreement at all is likely?

The Prime Minister: It was agreed that these exchanges should be confidential, but certainly no ultimatum has been received, nor have we received anything which remotely suggests an acceptance of the terms put forward on board H.M.S. "Fearless". As time goes on more hon. Members even than before will begin to wonder whether anyone who cannot accept the "Fearless" terms must be, in their hearts, moving towards a racialist solution.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will state the criteria which guide him in the division of responsibility for the handling of foreign affairs as between the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and himself.

The Prime Minister: Those which have operated ever since the war, Sir, apart from the Suez period.

Mr. Marten: While recognising the obvious need for the Prime Minister to visit overseas, is he aware that some people are beginning to doubt the wisdom of the British Prime Minister, at this time when there are so many domestic problems, making so many diplomatic sorties overseas, to Bonn and Nigeria, when we have a Foreign Secretary who can probably do just as well?

The Prime Minister: The position is that there has been a long-standing agreement about annual exchanges of visits between Bonn and London. As to


Nigeria, I should have thought that anyone who listened to our debate last week, or read it, would have realised the grave anxieties about this, and I think it is my duty to go.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend give the figures for the number of occasions that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has expressed the desire that my right hon. Friend should visit all sorts of places all over the world?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES

Mr. Milne: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with special responsibility for keeping under review the operations of American and other foreign-owned companies in order to benefit the interests of the British economy.

The Prime Minister: The Government already keep these matters under constant review.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply is disappointing in view of the importance of foreign-owned companies, from America and elsewhere, to the British economy, particularly in development districts, through the creation of new jobs?

The Prime Minister: I could understand my hon. Friend's disappointment if I had said that the Government were not to keep these matters under constant review. I have previously explained in the House, as has the Chancellor, the criteria which guide us, and which guided previous Governments from the end of the war, when deciding upon applications by overseas manufacturers to set up in this country. A high proportion of them have been in development areas, and they have brought very welcome "know-how" and employment.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Prime Minister keep a special eye on the progress of the Concorde, bearing in mind that already some Americans are making noises which lead one to believe that it will be kept out of the United States on the pretence of noise because the United States has not got an aircraft equivalent?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question is very relevant.

Mr. Dickens: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is thoroughly bad practice for American-owned companies in this country to subscribe to the funds of British political parties?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of that happening. If my hon. Friend can give evidence—

Mr. Dickens: Rootes.

The Prime Minister: —I should be glad to see it. I think that Rootes has a fairly long and consistent record in its contributions to political parties.

Mr. Lubbock: What steps is the Prime Minister taking to reassure American and other foreign-owned enterprises in the United Kingdom that he is taking measures to prevent industrial unrest, and thus prevent the jeopardising here of American and other investment which is so essential to our balance of payments?

The Prime Minister: The measures included the White Paper on Industrial Relations, which was recently approved by this House, supplemented by a statement I made in the country last Friday that referred to three major and damaging strikes on Merseyside, and it is a fact that two of the firms concerned were subsidiaries of American firms.

Mr. Cant: I welcome the emergence of a special relationship based on economic rather than political factors. In the light of the fact that American investment is likely to assume the proportion of 25 per cent. of total investment in this country in the 1970s, will my hon. Friend do something to allay the disquiet that is emerging by asking the Americans to make room for British shareholder participation and for more management possibilities in American companies here?

The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend's anxieties are based on a study of a document on American investment published by P.E.P. in February this year. That estimate is based on some very un-checkable assumptions, and I do not think that many people would necessarily go as far as he would in the figure which he put on it; nor does he take account of British investment in the United States. With increasing specialisation, this is to be welcomed both ways, particularly when valuable "know-how" is


brought to this country. My hon. Friend will know that foreign firms in this country account for 14 per cent. of our total exports from Britain, even though they own only about 7 per cent. of the net assets.

ANGUILLA

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in Anguilla.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): As I told the House yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers), I shall be making a statement on this subject. This will be at the earliest possible moment.
Meanwhile, I wish to make one thing clear. The object of the British Government's policy is to install Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla with the task of working out a long-term solution of the problem in Anguilla which is acceptable to all concerned, including the people of Anguilla themselves.
It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration they do not want.—[Vol. 780, c. 39–42.]

Mr. Maudling: Is the Secretary of State aware of the volume and detail of the Press reports of activities which are causing public concern because they are out of scale with what is happening in Anguilla? Secondly, will he make absolutely clear today—and I think that this can be done without prejudice to anything that is happening—what is the precise constitutional duty of Britain and what are the precise constitutional rights of Britain in acting in this field?

Mr. Stewart: I am, of course, aware of Press reports. I do not think that I should comment on them now; they may arise later on when I make a statement.
The constitutional position is to be found in the West Indies Act, 1967. We have responsibilities for the defence and external affairs of an associated State, and there are also certain other provisions where we could act with the consent of an associated State. The point

that is most relevant is Section 7 of that Act.

Mr. Maudling: May I press the Foreign Secretary on that? I asked what our duties were. I am quite clear that out duties relate to external defence, but what are our duties on internal problems?

Mr. Stewart: The internal affairs of an associated State are its own concern, but we have a responsibility for its external defence, and we can also act in accordance with the wishes of the Government of an associated State.

Mr. Braine: If the purpose of the Government is not to force the Anguillans to live under a Government that they detest, the Government have known this for two years. Why have not they done anything before, and why is it necessary now to use force?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member had better wait for the statement I am to make later.

Mr. Marten: Does the last part of the Foreign Secretary's answer to my right hon. Friend mean that he is prepared to give an assurance that Anguilla will not be put back under St. Kitts, and, if so, what is the power in the West Indies Act under which he gives that assurance?

Mr. Stewart: I will repeat the assurance which I gave. It is no part of our purpose that the Anguillans should live under an administration which they do not want. It means exactly what it says.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend agree that it would be most unfortunate if Britain were to be involved in a military intervention overseas and the House of Commons were presented only after the event with a fait accompli? I welcome his remarks about the wishes of the Anguillans, but will he elaborate? Does this mean, for example, that there will be a referendum of all the people of Anguilla before any final constitutional settlement is imposed?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think at this stage that I can elaborate. In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we are making a number of precautionary moves so as to be ready for any eventuality.

Mr. Murray: As the Government seen) to have acted very quickly and there seem to be preparations for troop movements, would it not have been better to have a rehearsal for this military operation in Rhodesia?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend should look at the geography and certain other facts that are involved here.

Mr. Sandys: Has it not been obvious, ever since internal self-government was granted, that the union between St. Kitts and Anguilla could not last, and why have not the Government taken effective action to prevent the occurrence of this explosive situation which could have been foreseen?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman makes a large number of assumptions in that question which I am not prepared to accept, and there are implications in it which had better be dealt with later on.

Mr. Dalyell: On the last point of the Foreign Secretary's statement, that it is no part of the Government's purpose that Anguillans should live under a régime they do not want, was this made perfectly clear by the Under-Secretary when he visited Anguilla?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. When my hon. Friend visited Anguilla a statement from him which made this quite clear was distributed to the people.

Mr. Heath: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that right hon. and hon. Members have to make assumptions in this matter because he has been so uncommunicative to the House? Yesterday, the House was very patient with him, but we now find that there is wide and detailed coverage of all these matters in the Press, radio and television, and the House of Commons appears to be the last place to be informed. Will the Foreign Secretary at least be more explicit about the situation as the Government see it? For example, do they believe that at the moment Anguilla is under a régime which it does not want, and will he be more explicit about the Government's objective? Is it to achieve results by negotiation, or by force?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can complain that I was unwilling to inform the House yes-

terday. I answered a question which, in fact, was not asked, and which I was under no obligation to do. I did it in deference to the wishes of the House. I have been plain enough today about the objective of policy. I do not think that I can be expected to comment on every report that appears in the Press, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I will keep the House as fully informed as it is in the public interest to do so.

Mr. George Brown: I do not press my right hon. Friend to make a statement; I think that he should be the judge of when he should do that. Will he bear in mind that both he and I, over a period of some years, have refused to resort to what we used to call scornfully "gun-boat diplomacy" in issues which had much more interest for Britain than this; and when he comes to make his statement, will he please take into account that if by then force has been used a number of people will want to know why it has been used in this case and not in other cases, which have much more interest for Britain?

Mr. Stewart: I take note of what my right hon. Friend says. Might I take up a point in the right hon. Gentleman's question which I did not answer? In the light of the treatment accorded to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we believe that what happened then was not in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the people of Anguilla.

Mr. Thorpe: Since what is required is a permanent political settlement, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are adequate legal facilities for the people to be allowed to secede or opt for a looser form of federation?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that it would be right to look ahead to the exact nature of what the settlement will be. I have laid down one necessary condition of it, namely, that it should be acceptable to the people of Anguilla.

Mr. Luard: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's difficulty, can we be assured that, before there is any attempt to use force in this instance, there will be further attempts at a peaceful approach to the people of Anguilla themselves?

Mr. Stewart: We are most anxious—and this was one reason why I answered the right hon. Gentleman's question as I did—that the people of Anguilla should be fully aware of our policy as I have defined it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Baker— Private Notice Question.

LONGHOPE LIFEBOAT

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Mr. W. H. K. Baker (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Longhope lifeboat reported missing and now overdue.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): At about 2 o'clock this afternoon, the Longhope lifeboat was found floating upside down about 4 miles south west of Torness. Three lifeboats, a Shackleton aircraft, a helicopter and two Coastguard rescue companies had been searching for it since daylight, the search having begun late last night. The lifeboat had a crew of seven and the search for survivors is continuing. We must all hope very much that they will be found. The life-boat went to the assistance of the Liberian cargo ship "Irene", which ran aground off South Ronaldsay last night in a force 9 easterly gale. Its crew were rescued by coastguards.
I would like to express my admiration for all concerned in the rescue of the crew of the "Irene" and express my deepest sympathy, which I know the House will share, for the relatives of the gallant lifeboat crew in their anxiety and sadness.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with those remarks of the hon. Gentleman and express its profound anxiety today, which, by tragic coincidence, happens to be Life-boat Day in London. I am sure, too, that the House will wish to express its sympathy with the relatives of the crew. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Would the Minister agree that the incredible bravery and self-sacrifice of lifeboat crews is exemplified by the Longhope boat having put out on its mission of mercy in such appalling weather conditions as

prevailed last night? Will the Minister undertake to keep the House informed as soon as practicable of any news he may receive?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly I will give the last undertaking. I understand that the lifeboat is now in tow and will be righted when it reaches its destination at about six o'clock this evening. At that stage, it will be possible to discover whether there are bodies underneath.
As for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I agree that this is one of the worst stretches of water in the world, and it was an act of singular courage for the boat to put out in the conditions prevailing last night.

Mr. James Johnson: May I, from these benches, say how much the men of the fishing ports owe to our gallant lifeboat crews? May we extend our sympathy and deepest condolences to the families of the missing men?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short business statement.
Tomorrow, there will be, until about seven o'clock, a debate on an Opposition Motion on the rising costs of home ownership. This will arise in Supply.
The business already announced will follow.

Mr. Heath: May I thank the Leader of the House for facilitating the arrangement of this business? Are we to understand that the rest of the Supply will continue for an additional time?

Mr. Peart: Yes.

Mr. Michael Foot: Did my right hon. Friend receive any representations through the usual channels that this debate on the mortgage rates—if the Opposition consider it to be a matter of importance—should be taken today instead of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, or were there no representations from the Front Bench opposite to postpone the Parliament (No. 2) Bill at all?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend wishes to make his point. I note it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does this mean that my right hon. Friend is taking more time out of our consideration of the Air Estimates? He has already stolen four hours from our consideration of the Defence Estimates. Does he intend to steal another two hours?

Mr. Peart: No. We can go on until midnight.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House now answer the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)? Did he receive any approaches from the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need to put the same question twice at business question time.

Mr. Lewis: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for an answer to my question?

Mr. Ogden: Will the Leader of the House suggest how I might answer a constituent who inquires how it is that the House of Commons can spend three hours debating the situation on mortgages and yet spend eight, 10, 12, or 15 hours considering the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be about tomorrow's business.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order to help the House, are we to understand that, if a question is put to a Minister and he does not answer it, no one else can put the same question to try to get in answered?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The simple answer is commonsense. It is an otiose exercise—[Laughter.] Obviously I must translate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Sir Harmar Nichollsrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am answering the hon. Gentleman. If an hon. Member asks a Minister a question and the Minister refuses to answer it, to ask it again does not secure an answer from the Minister.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are occasions when it is the duty of the House to pursue certain questions. If the Minister does not answer a question, I would

have thought that the House must pursue it. Your Ruling seems contrary to that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker never rules. He only advises the House on matters of commonsense.

Mr. Heath: Would not the Leader of the House agree that both he and the Opposition thought it more important to look after the convenience of the House by not changing the business with less than 24 hours' notice than to pander to the peculiar obsessions of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)?

Mr. Peart: Yes, I agree. I thought that this change was for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). If, in your wisdom, you describe so innocent a pastime as repeating a question to a Minister as "an otiose exercise", would you be good enough to tell us with what graphic phrase you would describe the Government's pursuing the Parliament (No. 2) Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt Mr. Speaker.

ART AUCTIONS (RINGS)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Crosland—statement.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): The House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend left the Board of Trade some time ago with the intention of being present at this moment. I know that the House attaches the greatest importance to what my right hon. Friend will say. I can only conceive that there has been some untoward incident in his journey here. I am sure that the House will not wish to make assumptions until a full explanation has been given.
It may be helpful to the House, and avoid further delay, if I indicate what my right hon. Friend would have wished to say had circumstances allowed him to be present. The House will know the great courtesy that my right hon. Friend always shows on these occasions and will not


assume that it is not his intention at the earliest moment to give a very full explanation—[Interruption.]
The House will be delighted to see that no harm has come of my right hon. Friend, so I shall be glad now to withdraw.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I should like to begin by apologising to the House for my under-estimation of the amount of time that would be spent on the preceding business.
With permission, I will make a statement about the inquiries which my Department has been making into the existence of rings at art auctions. I have now had the opportunity, on my return from a two-week visit to Latin America, of examining in detail the results of these inquiries.
They were undertaken by two experienced former police officers, who are members of the Investigations Branch of the Board of Trade. These officers interviewed over 40 persons concerned in different ways with sales of works of art, including most of the leading art dealers in London. They also made inquiries of many other art dealers, both in this country and in Italy. In the course of these general inquiries, information was given about the sale at Aldwick Court.
After consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I have decided that the report of these inquiries should not be published. The report gives details of the persons interviewed by my officers, of the statements made by those persons both orally and in writing, of the officers' assessments of the reliability of the witnesses and the value of their evidence, and of the officers' conclusions. Some of the material on which the report is based was given confidentially, and some of it may well be defamatory. I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend that it would be wrong for me to be responsible for breaches of confidentiality or for the publication of defamatory statements.
Further, and perhaps more important, it would be wrong in principle to publish details of an inquiry of this nature which necessarily included an investigation into the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings. Publication might

well cause injustice to persons named in the report who will not be charged, and who consequently will not have the safeguards afforded to defendants in a criminal trial. Moreover, publication might have an adverse effect on future investigations into allegations of criminal practices of all kinds.
But I wish to give the House the essential findings which emerge from the report. On the question of the existence and possible operation of rings generally, many art dealers have given a certain amount of information which, however, never descends from the general to the specific. That is to say, they have all heard of rings operating, but cannot, or will not, supply precise information as to their membership or operation. The inquiries, therefore, do not disclose any evidence which could form the basis of criminal proceedings. I should add that a study of the prices achieved at sales at the leading art auctions in London over the last two years strongly suggests that rings have not operated there and that dealers compete freely and properly for pictures.
As to the Aldwick Court sale, I repeat what I told the House on 6th November, namely, that no detailed or useful information was given either to the Board of Trade or to the police, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, until after the time-limit for any prosecution had expired.
It may be said that further or better information might have become available had inquiries been started earlier. But the outcome of the present inquiry does not encourage me to believe this. The only information of any substance or significance concerning the Aldwick Court sale which my officers have been able to obtain has been provided by people who were in a position to make that same information available well before the time limit for any prosecution had expired, but who made no move to do so. Indeed, we were given no clue even as to who these people were until that time had expired.
As I have said, I do not intend to publish the report, but my statement this afternoon has given the House the essential conclusions which emerge from it. In my view, the most important thing now is to make rapid progress with


the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Bill, which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has so helpfully introduced with the full support and co-operation of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Channon: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that many people, both inside and outside this House, will find his statement this afternoon extremely disappointing?
Is he further aware that this only goes to show that the wrong form of inquiry was set up by his Department? Is it not a fact that hon. Members, on 6th November and on many other occasions, pressed him to set up a different sort of inquiry under which none of these difficulties would have arisen?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the rumours which have been flying around and the position in which the London art trade is now left by his refusal to publish this report is a most unsatisfactory situation and may damage many people in the London art trade?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the legal difficulties could be cleared up, both the British Antique Dealers' Association and the Society of London Art Dealers are most anxious that he should publish this report? Is it not possible to get over these legal difficulties by laying this report in response to an Order for an Unopposed Return, which has been done many times in this House—most recently in the Bristol-Siddeley case? Would it not be far better to clear up this unsatisfactory state of affairs than to leave the matter where it is at the moment?

Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
First, as to this being the wrong form of inquiry, there were only two forms of inquiry fundamentally possible. One was an inquiry conducted, as this was, in confidence, in which persons might be prepared to give information because that information would not be published. This seemed to be the sensible way of going about things.
The only other form of inquiry would be a public inquiry, perhaps under a O.C., as the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) has suggested, in which witnesses would not enjoy any protection and would, therefore, be

wholly unwilling to provide information I should not think that that kind of inquiry would benefit anyone, so I have no regrets about the form of inquiry that was chosen.
As to damage to the London art trade, I hope that what I have said about the findings concerning the London art trade is sufficient answer to the question, because it is important to clear it of any imputation of incorrect or inappropriate actions.
On the last question about an Order on the Bristol-Siddeley analogy, I should like to look into that and give the hon. Gentleman a considered answer.

Mr. Costain: Will the President confirm that the Bill which I am sponsoring would lead to the prosecution of people named in an inquiry? That being so, will he have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to see that time is provided to give a speedy passage to the Bill?

Mr. Crosland: I am strongly in favour of a speedy passage for the Bill, and so is my right hon. Friend.
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, nothing in this report would lead, or has led, to any possibility of criminal proceedings being taken. I think that the report, in a general sense, lends support to the objects of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman has introduced.

Mr. Whitaker: Is it not obvious that the present strength of State machinery for investigating these practices is less than adequate, because it was left to a national newspaper to expose a major example of the racket, despite the grave risk of libel to which it exposed itself in doing this public duty?

Mr. Crosland: I hope that my hon. Friend is not misunderstanding what the rôle of the Board of Trade is in this. We have a general responsibility for supervising the law relating to auctions. That is our sole responsibility. Any question of prosecution or criminal proceedings is not a matter for the Board of Trade. That is a matter for the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions, and if any hon. Member, or anyone in the art world, has now, or has had in the past, any evidence which might lead


to criminal prosecution, it is his duty to draw this evidence to the attention of the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although we appreciate the difficulties of publishing evidence which was given in private which might be defamatory, he has given the House very little information? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, as a result of the inquiry, that he knows the sort of powers that are required to prevent any such occurrences in the future? Is the right hon. Gentleman recommending an Amendment to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)? If the Government are not prepared to expedite the passage of that Bill, are they intending to introduce legislation themselves?

Mr. Crosland: I have given little detailed information because the results of this inquiry were, in a sense, negative. The inquiry showed that there was a good deal of hearsay information about the operation of rings, but no evidence was produced to the inquiry which would justify criminal prosecution, and, as I have already said, there was evidence that the London art market, in particular, operates freely and properly.
As to the Bill, I do not think that, in the event, the results of this inquiry either alter the case for it or against it. I am certain that the thing to do now is to get on with the Bill whose provisions will be necessary whatever the consequences of this inquiry.

Mr. John Mendelson: While accepting that one could not place the blame for this unsatisfactory outcome on my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether, for his part, my right hon. Friend accepts that he has put the House and the public in a highly unsatisfactory situation? On the one hand, my right hon. Friend argues that, on the advice of the Attorney-General, he cannot publish the report, and on the other, he leaves the public in the dark about whether there were any guilty parties. May I therefore press my right hon. Friend most strongly to reconsider the matter and to discuss it with the Attorney-General to see whether, after all, the report can be published as fully as possible?

Mr. Crosland: My instincts are entirely on the side of my hon. Friend. Nevertheless, I have, after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend, given the reasons, which I find to be powerful ones, why the full report of this inquiry cannot be published. As to leaving the public in the dark about whether criminal events took place or not, I think I made it clear in my original statement that no evidence emerges from the report which would justify any criminal proceedings.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: As the right hon. Gentleman was spurred into setting up the inquiry only as a result of an article in the Sunday Times, may I ask whether he is, in effect, saying that there was no substance in that article? If so, will he bear in mind that there have been no actions for defamation following that article?

Mr. Crosland: I do not wish to comment any further on the Aldwick Court sale as such, for the reason that that sale is now time-expired and therefore it would not be right to comment on it. As to whether there would have been any evidence of criminal offences committed at that sale, it was fully open to anybody who had such evidence to bring that evidence to the attention of my Department, or to the police, or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, before the six months had passed, but no such evidence was given from any quarter.

Mr. Barnett: I am sure that most of us would like to see the report, but is not there some confusion here? We may want to see the abolition of rings generally, but the fact is that losses which have been made in instances of which we know are not necessarily due to rings but to inadequate reserve prices being placed on particular articles owing to inadequate advice being given. Should not we be centring our minds on how to deal with this aspect of the problem rather than on the one about which we have been talking?

Mr. Crosland: I think that there are occasions when my hon. Friend's analysis is the correct one. I have no doubt that in the course of the Committee discussions on the Bill, which I hope will now proceed, this matter can be more fully debated.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Mr. A. Royle: On a point of order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and I originally raised this matter with the Board of Trade, would it be possible for me to be called to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker is not omniscient. The hon. Member has raised a valid point. Mr. Anthony Royle.

Mr. A. Royle: Many people outside the House will consider that the President of the Board of Trade is tending to raise a disturbing wall of silence around the Board of Trade. Did any of the people who were interviewed by the right hon. Gentleman's inspectors identify anyone who had taken part in a ring?

Mr. Crosland: I hesitate to speak on legal matters without my right hon. and learned Friend immediately beside me, but nobody identified anyone in such a way that could have led to any criminal proceedings being taken.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: On a point of order. As I first raised the matter in October, 1964, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I allow the hon. Member to ask a supplementary question, he must ask my leave to do so. I think that the hon. Member has a point.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in his statement, he gave an indication that he was satisfied that there was no ring in pictures. Why was there such a wall of silence about rings in other forms of antiques throughout the country?

Mr. Crosland: What I said about rings in pictures was that there was a good deal of hearsay information but no firm evidence which would have allowed criminal proceedings to be taken. As to other rings, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, this inquiry was confined to rings at art auctions. We are dealing primarily with pictures.

Mr. Heath: May I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, who, I think,

feels that the matter has been left in a rather unsatisfactory state? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in some other matters, for example where security is involved, the Government publish a report after they have deleted matters which they consider not to be in the public interest to publish and after they have shown it to myself as Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A short time ago you rebuked me for asking the Minister once to change an answer that he had already given to a question. The hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members are asking the Minister to change an answer that he has given to a question. May I ask why you rebuked me and have not rebuked the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: First of all, the Leader of the Opposition is a right hon. Gentleman, not an hon. Gentleman. He was not asking the same question in any conceivable way whatsoever.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to discuss with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General whether it is possible to make deletions from the report which will avoid the difficulties about defamation, and, if so, whether this could be done? Or would he agree to the Attorney-General discussing with one of my right hon. Friends who has legal experience what the difficulties are to see whether they can be overcome?

Mr. Crosland: There are two points here. I think that there would be great difficulties about publishing an expurgated edition of the report. The bulk of the report consists of statements from the 40 or more people who were interviewed. I think that an expurgated edition would omit all the information that was most interesting and would not give any indication of where the omissions had been made.
I should like to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend whether the full report should or could be made available to the right hon. Gentleman under the procedure which he described. As far as I am concerned, I would greatly welcome this.

Sir J. Vanghan-Morgan: On a point of order. As the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he would like to publish something but has been overruled by the Attorney-General, and as the Attorney-General is present, may we have a statement forthwith on why he overruled his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Attorney-General, not for the Chair.

Mr. Brooks: On a point of order. In fact, I have two points of order to raise. On the first, may I have your guidance? It is the normal custom in this House when Members rise to seek to catch your eye to put supplementary questions to accept your judgment about the time when the discussion should be exhausted, and I think it is true to say that the majority of us accept that unequivocally. This afternoon we have had no fewer than three hon. Members rising to make specific points, and in two cases to extend the discussion. Would it be possible for others who are members of the Committee which is to discuss the Bill tomorrow to put representations to you that we have as much right to be called as others who are not members of the Committee? If that be the case, it appears to follow that, if such representations are made and those hon. Members are then called, this will extend the time for questions on my right hon. Friend's statement very substantially.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with all that the hon. Member has said, in spirit, in tone, and in everything. If the hon. Member wishes to put a supplementary question, he may do so.

Mr. Brooks: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall not waste the time of the House, because this will now remove the need to raise it as a point of order. Might I put it to my right hon. Friend that, as he is in some difficulty, because we understand the Parliamentary Commissioner is at the moment investigating certain allegations of maladministration by his Department, it might be in the interests of the House to know whether Sir Edmund Compton will have a right to see the full unexpurgated version of this report?

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir, he already has done so.

ANGUILLA

Mr. Marten: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Anguilla situation.
Yesterday, I gave reasons for moving the Adjournment of the House, and I will not take up the time of the House by repeating them, but today we have had a statement from the Foreign Secretary and there is no longer any need for secrecy over this operation. It is clear that we have a situation in which the House should urgently express its opinion on a matter which, as I said yesterday, is most specific and important.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Anguilla situation.
I have listened to all that happened yesterday, and all that has happened today; and, as the House knows, under revised Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in that revised Standing Order, but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made, and to all that has happened since yesterday, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. May I submit one point which has not been raised during this afternoon or yesterday's discussion, namely, the need for absolute clarity of Government statement, otherwise English lives could be endangered. This seems a new point, especially as there has been no denial by the Government—and I failed to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr. Speaker—in a very complex legal situation under the 1967 Act, that this possible sending of British troops is not at the request of Premier Bradshaw. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is setting two bad precedents. One is trying to debate a subject which I have said cannot be debated under revised Standing Order No. 9; and the other is questioning the Ruling that Mr. Speaker has given.

Mr. John Mendelson: Without going into the details of this particular question, may I again raise a point of order which I raised with you, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, namely, when important policy is being decided by the Government, either in the United Nations or in their own counsels, affecting the future of this country and its involvement in important and serious international affairs, when is the House going to be able to discuss such a matter whilst the policy is still being decided? The answer that one is often given is to put down a Motion. It is not my intention, or that of my hon. Friends who agree with me, to put down a Motion. It is most unreasonable in order to initiate a debate to have to put down a personal Motion about Mr. Speaker. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that procedure is for an altogether different purpose and an altogether different situation. But I submit that this is a real problem and that we ought to have some opportunity to take counsel with you in public as to what the answer to the question is.

Mr. Speaker: The answer is very simple. There is almost no limit on the kind of topic which an hon. Gentleman may seek to raise under Standing Order No. 9. All the old precedents have disappeared and all the Rulings my predecessors have given in the past have disappeared. It still remains the fact that Mr. Speaker has to decide from time to time whether the business of the House, or the business of the next day, shall be moved to one side to make way for an emergency debate; and none of the anxieties in the hon. Gentleman's mind affect this particular decision.

ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE)

Mr. Gurden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for compulsory motor vehicle insurance against liability for damage to the property of third parties; to give third parties a right of action against insurance companies in respect of damage to their persons or property caused by motor vehicles insured by those insurance companies; and for connected purposes.
This Motion seeks leave to bring in a Bill to extend the effect of subsection (3) of Section 203 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to protect the property of any person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Act of 1960 requires a vehicle to be insured for liability to a third party suffering death or bodily injury. I seek to extend that liability to property of a third party. The person insured in respect of the vehicle has to complete a claim form to comply with the insurance policy that he is obliged to take out for liability for death or bodily injury, even though the injury to the person may be only a cut finger. But where property damage only is sustained, and not personal injury, there is, under the law as it stands today, no obligation upon the owner or driver, or upon his insurance company, to meet the damages.
There is no such obligation so long as the owner or the driver declines to fill in a form of claim upon his insurance company. At times, insurance companies refuse to pay, or even to consider a claim simply because under the terms of the policy the insured person has not filled in a claim form. This Bill seeks to make it obligatory for the insured person to make out a claim form where property is involved, just as he does in the case of personal injury.
Most drivers and owners of vehicles, of course, do fill in a claim form where they have incurred damage or where damage is involved. But a growing number of drivers and owners refuse to do this, for several reasons. One is that the insured person may lose his no claim bonus. Another is that he may not be insured against property damage of the kind that can arise. The reason why the law is in the position that it is, and why Governments have refused to do anything about this, is that 40 years ago a Royal Commission refused, on balance, to recommend that this provision should be


included in an Act of Parliament. But we all know the changes that have happened in motoring in the last 40 years. Car ownership is much wider. It is now for the masses. Indeed, some owner-drivers could not possibly pay for the extensive damage which a vehicle can do. Many owners take out the absolute minimum of insurance and wish to protect their no claim bonuses, so there is a growing number of cases of damage to property every day in which recovery is not possible. Of course, one can resort to civil action, but many people who have written to me have not the resources or the ability to do so. In any case, the procedure is very slow and there is always the risk of losing. This does not apply in the case of personal injury, when the law says that an insurance company must meet its liabilities.
This amending Bill is not aimed at the ordinary honest and decent citizen who insures himself properly and meets his obligations by filling in a claim form, but against the negligent and certainly the dishonest and unscrupulous people who get into difficulties, sometimes through no bad intentions. Police action usually does not apply, because there is not always evidence of a driving offence and it may not be the driver's own fault that property damage has occurred.
The exact situation is this. Any of us may be resting calmly in a deckchair in the garden one afternoon, with the vehicle that we own parked in the front drive or garage, when some other vehicle

runs off the road and damages our vehicle, or even the garage or the house, or a pram or a cycle or other property. There is no redress and thousands of £s worth of damage may be done which could not be recovered. Of course, if all steps are taken, the person responsible may go into bankruptcy and the person injured receive nothing.
There have been few cases of this in years gone by, but a growing number is happening now and I have a large number of letters and evidence. I do not propose to put it all before the House now, since there would not be time, but I should be happy to do so if the Bill were given a Second Reading. Since this is my second attempt, I hope that the Government will at least give facilities for a Second Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Gurden.

ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE)

Bill to provide for compulsory motor vehicle insurance against liability for damage to the property of third parties; to give third parties a right of action against insurance companies in respect of damage to their persons or property caused by motor vehicles insured by those insurance companies; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 115].

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 26th February].

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Clause 4

LOSS OF VOTING RIGHT BY NON-ATTENDANCE

Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 4, to leave out from 'than' to '(other' in line 5 and insert:
'two-thirds of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session to debate any matter on which the House of Commons has reached a decision within the same Session and one-half of the total number of other days'.—[Mr. Sheldon.]

4.25 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order. Once again, I consider that the selection of Amendments has been restrictive, because precedents have been used where there is no precedent. This is not just an important public Bill but a Bill which decides the fate of all future Bills, and there are no precedents for this in a situation in which there is no official Front Bench Opposition to protect certain safeguards in a Bill of this magnitude. Therefore, the safeguards can only come through you, Mr. Gourlay, and your colleagues. I must make clear my very serious objection to the important principles which have been allowed to be over-ruled. The Bill is unique, and what we may be establishing by this kind of selection are unhappy precedents for the future.
But I have a second point of order. In some ways, it is just as serious. You may recall, Mr. Gourlay, that when we ended our previous debate on Wednesday, 26th February, a Motion to report Progress was moved shortly after a discussion about questions of secrecy and information which was due to be given to the Committee. When I asked for certain figures which underlay the whole scheme upon which the Bill has been built, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said:

Certain calculations were made on our behalf and, if my hon. Friend feels interested, I will consider making them available to him, although they are long and complicated.
I expressed my very deep thanks for the understanding that these matters should be brought before the Committee and that there should be no attempt at secrecy in matters fundamental to the way in which the Bill had been prepared.
This was shortly before ten o'clock, and our discussion was then interrupted by a Division. When we returned, my right hon. Friend was then able to give the figures which he had mentioned previously. He said:
I thought it useful to tell the Committee what the calculation was. It was mostly concerned with the Session 1967–68. We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over 50 per cent. of the Sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the Sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837, 1844.]
That was a half a dozen figures instead of the long and complicated figures which were the only basis on which we could indepndently examine the value of the model created by my right hon. Friend. Have you had representations made to you, Mr. Gourlay, that we should now receive those figures?

The Deputy Chairman: The second point of order, the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is not a matter for the Chair. On the first point of order, it is not for the Chair to discuss the selection of Amendments. I have taken note of the hon. Members points, but I cannot help him on this matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. On the second matter raised by my hon. Friend, is it a decision of the Chair whether documents which should be laid are to be laid? When there are questions of certain documents mentioned in debate being put before the Committee, is it the Chair's decision whether they should be laid? On the first point, some of us have been greatly assisted by the lists posted in the Lobby about the Amendments which are to be called and their grouping. Can you inform me on this point? Is it not the case that the selection of Amendments is bound to be affected by the course of the debates


themselves, and that there may be events that occur in the course of the discussions which create the need to call some Amendments that are upon the Notice Paper? It may very well be, for example, that the discussion of these figures would affect the calling of some future Amendments. May we have an undertaking from the Chair that the selection and grouping, of Amendments and the decision about the Amendments upon which votes may be cast, will be reviewed by the Chair at least after each sitting of the House on these matters?
4.30 p.m.
It has been noted by some of us that the selection of Amendments in the Lobby at the present time is the same as the selection of Amendments following the end of our last debate. In my submission, it is necessary for the Chair, after each sitting when we discuss the Bill, to consider whether the course of debate regarding the Bill itself and the developments that may take place do not affect the future Amendments which may be called. I stress this in the same sense as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has done. This is a unique Bill. It is a Bill which seeks to do in the Preamble what has never been attempted before so far as we are aware. It is a Bill which is attempting to alter the whole constitutional balance between the different Houses of Parliament and is therefore also unique in that sense.
Many of us believe that it is all the more necessary that the Chair should be extremely scrupulous in ensuring that we have the fullest possible opportunity to press the Amendments which many of us think are desirable. Could I have the assurance, therefore, that, on the first point of order, there will be a review by the Chair of the selection of Amendments after each sitting so that there may be the possibility of Amendments being altered, if necessary, and extended to take account of events which may have occurred in the debates themselves?

The Deputy Chairman: I can assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), as a result of the long discussions in the Chamber on this Bill, that the Chair does recognise the unique character of the Bill. On the question of selection, I can give

no assurance other than to say that all relevant factors are considered prior to each sitting of the Committee regarding the grouping and the selection of Amendments. In consequence, the points raised by the hon. Gentleman are naturally taken into consideration.
On the first point of order, namely, the question of placing documents before the Committee, no documents have to my knowledge ever been referred to. It is true the Secretary of State made reference to figures and numbers, but no reference to any specific document.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, could we be advised, in the difficulty in which we find ouselves, to which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has drawn attention'.' When the Committee was previously seized of the Amendment now before you, an indication was given by the Secretary of State of the existence of a great mass of material—he used the words "long and complicated "—which clearly bore upon the discussion on which we were engaged. There was then an interruption and, subsequent to that interruption, some information of a very brief, though relevant, character was given by the right hon. Gentleman. We now find ourselves, after a lapse of between two or three weeks, resuming the consideration of this Amendment. This puts the Committee in a great difficulty, because we are not able easily to proceed with the consideration of this Amendment without the background material, the existence of which was indicated, and the presentation of which, initially to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, but subsequently generally, was promised by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope you will be able to help the Committee by suggesting to us how we could extricate ourselves from this problem.

The Deputy Chairman: I recognise the point that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is not a matter for the Chair. There are ways, I am sure, in which hon. Members can elicit the information from the Minister; but this is definitely not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Powell: As you recognise the difficulty that the Committee is in and the


importance to the Committee of having this information before it, would you accept a Motion "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again "?

The Deputy Chairman: I would not accept such a Motion at this stage.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: May I raise a quite different point of order, of rather less far-reaching importance, but affecting the convenience of our discussions in Committee?
On Friday, a number of new Amendments to the Bill were tabled. They duly appeared on the Notice Paper on Monday and appear today not as starred Amendments. None the less, they appear on a separate sheet, pale blue in colour—I can assure you that this has no political significance—and separate from the main Notice Paper. As they relate to a number of Clauses, Amendments to which are set out in proper order on the main Notice Paper, it is quite extraordinarily inconvenient that, for example, Amendment No. 220, which relates to Clause 8, comes after Amendment No. 78, which relates to the Preamble on the Notice Paper.
It is normal, as I understand it, for a marshalled Notice Paper to be produced every day when the House is in Committee. I agree that there are occasionally some days when the marshalling is not done on days between our sittings. On this occasion—which is a day the House was to be in Committee on this Bill according to the announcement of business last Thursday—we have a white Notice Paper dealing with Amendments submitted prior to Friday and Friday's Amendments on a separate sheet, entirely detached. This is a matter of some inconvenience.
I wonder whether you would indicate whether this is intended to be a normal practice during further deliberations on the Committee stage, or whether it is the result of that very exceptional thing—a lapse on the part of the House authorities?

The Deputy Chairman: I am somewhat surprised by the optimism of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) regarding the progress of the Committee on the

Bill. Referring to the specific point of order whihch has been made, the reason for this is due to some labour troubles in the printing office. This is a matter which is out of the control of the authorities of the House.

Mr. John Peyton: You yourself, Mr. Gourlay, have referred to the progress being made with the Bill. Is it not of the utmost importance that no unnecessary obstacles shall be placed in the Bill's course? If there have been some difficulties due to labour troubles on this occasion, I hope you will give the House the assurance that, as soon as matters return to normal, we will have a Notice Paper which sets out the Amendments in an intelligible form, that Notice Paper then being almost unique in virtue so far as the whole proceedings on the Bill are concerned.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to information which had been mentioned by Ministers. It is regrettable that the Secretary of State, who is a natural parent of the Bill, is temporarily absent from the Chamber, because had descretion not been the better part of valour he would have wished to respond to the obvious invitation issued to him by you, Mr. Gourlay, that perhaps he could guide the Committee, whereas it would be difficult for the Chair to do so. The right hon. Gentleman being absent, would the Under-Secretary say if it is the intention of the Government to aid the Committee along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)?

The Deputy Chairman: I cannot add to what I have said on this matter. Perhaps the Committee may now proceed to discuss the Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): Further to that point of order, in so far as hon. Members have suggested that a document is in existence, I put it to the Committee that the word used by the Secretary of State and by the Solicitor-General was "calculations" rather than "document". The information contained in these calculations has already been given fully to the Committee. [HON.
MEMBERS: "When?"] It appears in column 1844 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February.

Mr. Sheldon: Further to the point of order. It might be valuable to the Committee if I pointed out that I have been trying to obtain a list of statistics which are relevant and which are in the Library, but which have been denied to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have proof with me that the list exists. I have a letter which tells me that a request for straightforward statistical information cannot be given because of undertakings supplied to certain people. [Interruption.] May I ask for guidance from the Chair about whether a list which is in the Library should be laid before the Committee?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Again, the point which the hon. Member raises is not a matter on which the Chair can intervene.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order. The Under-Secretary suggested that no document exists. When we last debated this matter, the Secretary of State referred to "long and complicated calculations ". Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that these complications were made in his right hon. Friend's head? If not, how were they written down? Is not the Under-Secretary fiddling with words when what we want to know is whether a document or list should be presented to us? Where is the piece of paper on which these calculations were written? Since the hon. Gentleman's first line of defence has been breached, will he proceed to the second and produce the document?

The Deputy Chairman: I have already dealt with that point of order. As far as the Chair is concerned, no such document exists.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), but on a different basis. Is it not a fact that if any person attempts to prevent an hon. Member from carrying out his Parliamentary duties by deliberately withholding information, a prima facie case of breach of privilege might arise? Does not such a case arise in this instance?
My hon. Friend said that the Library is in possession of information which it

is vital for us to have but which, at somebody's behest, has not been made available to my hon. Friend. This information is, therefore, being denied to hon. Members and may prevent us from performing our Parliamentary duties in discussing the Bill. Would you consider whether a prima facie breach of privilege exists in this instance, Mr. Gourlay?

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggested that the Chairman might report Progress and ask leave to sit again, we were discussing the possibility of the Minister producing some figures, to which reference had been made on 27th February. We now appear to be on a much greater constitutional question; namely, the fact that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has proved that the House of Commons, which is sovereign in these matters, is being deprived of information because of a private agreement entered into between whom we do not know. This information might alter our view about the Bill or the Clause. In view of this grave matter of constitutional propriety which has been raised. I suggest that we report progress and ask leave to sit again.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). When you ruled on this matter some minutes ago, Mr. Gourlay, you said that your statement was being based on what had been said at the conclusion of the previous sitting on the Bill. That was the statement that there was no document but merely some figures. Obviously, the Chair was bound to rule on the situation as it appeared to be presented by the Minister at that time.
Many of us have found it difficult to understand in what form these figures might have been documented. Were they written in water or on parchment? Were they preserved in some way for the use of others? My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has been able to prove that a document exists—

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Mr. Elystan Morganindicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: —and although my hon. Friend dissents. we accept my hon. Friend's statement that a document, or documents, is in existence.
It would be a serious situation indeed for the Government and for others concerned if we were to proceed on the basis of the Under-Secretary shaking his head in dissent and saying that no documents exist if later documents were produced. If that occurred, it would mean that the Committee had been denied its right to documents. We have rules governing this matter precisely for the purpose of protecting hon. Members. Before dealing with subjects, we often need to be given documents which are otherwise available only to certain people. These rules exist to protect the House of Commons against Ministers who might seek to get the support of hon. Members on the basis of information which they possess but which they will not reveal.
Until a few minutes ago, we had thought that no such situation arose because there were no such documents however difficult it was to discover how those figures could be tabulated, but now my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has given absolutely clear evidence that the documents are there. Why should we be denied them? The only way in which the Committee can proceed is to move to report Progress so that a Minister may be able to make a statement on these questions. If we are not to proceed by that method, further discussion of the Bill will be even more complicated than it might otherwise be in any case. So I hope very much that you will reconsider the question of whether we are able to press this Motion at present, because it is quite evident that before the Bill goes very much further those documents will have to be produced.
We cannot have a situation in which documents of this character are apparently to be kept concealed and the House is to pass this Measure and it is to go to another place. We do not know whether another place might insist on its rights, which are similar to our rights. It may insist that it should have the documents. Then we would be in the humiliating position that the Government had passed a Measure on the basis of documents denied to us but given to the House

of Lords. This is a serious matter. I urge again that the best course to deal with it is to report Progress. During that debate, which might proceed for a little time, it would be possible for the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State to make an authoritative statement on these documents. We would then put the proceedings in order, but if we proceed on the basis of saying that we can discuss these matters while these documents are still concealed, we will be heading for a Parliamentary smash-up.

The Deputy Chairman: The Chair is seized of the points of order dealing with a document. So far as the Chair is concerned, no document has been quoted in the Committee by any Minister. It is within the competence of a Minister to summarise any document without having to lay the document on the Table, as is the practice when a document is quoted.

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order. With the greatest respect, I do not think you have quite got the point. Not only has the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne been told that there is a document in the Library, but he has been told by some private arrangement that it is not for publication and he cannot have it. The House of Commons is supreme in these matters, but it is being told by the services that as a result of some arrangement, presumably a Ministerial diktat of some sort, this information is not available to the Committee. We are to carry on our debate deprived of the knowledge which the hon. Member, who has built up a reputation in this matter, is deprived" of the opportunity of presenting to the Committee. I canot see how we can reach a conclusion on the Amendment if the hon. Member is deprived of the information he wanted to give to the Committee. I cannot see how we can honestly and sensibly proceed with the Bill until that document is disclosed and released from the Library.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Further to that point of order. I have not myself seen these figures, but I understand that they go over a wider range than is covered by Clause 4. After researches have been made, the only figures relevant to the decision of the Government relating to one-third attendance qualifying for voting


rights, which is the matter we are discussing—are found to be those which have been given by the Secretary of State for Social Services, namely:
We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over 50 per cent. of the sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1844.]

The Deputy Chairman: The point raised by the hon. Member for Orms-kirk (Sir D. Glover) relating to the question of a document in the Library is certainly not a matter for the Chairman of this Committee. I have already indicated the Ruling with reference to laying a document on the Table. It is only when a Minister quotes from a document that it has to be laid on the Table. The Minister is allowed to summarise without laying the document.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On that point of order. Have you considered what the Solicitor-General said, as reported at c. 1819 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February? When asked by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) about these figures, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I cannot produce as an exhibit the calculations or the formulae. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Why not?'] I am asked, 'Why not?' I merely tell the Committee that the position is I cannot produce them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1819.]
That surely is the clearest admission by a Law Officer of the Crown that these documents exist.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not disputing their existence, but merely saying, for a reason he was not able to disclose to the Committee as to why he could not produce them, but he accepted their existence. In those circumstances, is it not quite contrary to the customs of this House and Rulings given by your predecessor in the Chair, that a Minister should seek to persuade the Committee of a point of view by reference to calculations embodied in a document which he nonetheless declines to produce? I submit that you would be acting in accordance with the traditions of the Chair you occupy were you now to order the Minister to produce that.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): Arising from that point of order, I am sure the Committee would wish to see this matter as it were compendiously and have regard to what I am reported to have said in c. 1821 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate:
To my knowledge, they …
I am referring to the matters brought forward by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in a question he put earlier—
are not in any document that I can identify or have ever referred to in the course of our considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1821.]

Mr. Sheldon: On a point of order. I think this question of documentation could be settled by my reading from a letter I received from the Research Division of the Library on 4th March:
I obtained a list of peers' attendances in 1966 to 1967 in order to answer what was then a request for straightforward statistical information from you. I was provided with the document (which is marked 'Confidential') on the understanding that while it might be freely used for statistical purposes details of individual attendance should not be disclosed.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: This adds to the remark I made earlier to which I did not receive a reply. We now have it from my hon. Friend that there is in fact a document available, it is in the Library and someone—at this stage we do not know who, but I assume someone acting on be-half of the Executive—is preventing hon. Members from having information which is necessary for them to carry out their Parliamentary duties. My knowledge of the history of this country is that the Executive should not be allowed to carry on any activity to prevent a Member of Parliament carrying out his Parliamentary duties.
This has been proved. Someone acting on behalf of the Executive has prevented my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and every other hon. Member from obtaining from the Library information which is there available. Mr. Speaker and his predecessors, and Chairmen of Ways and Means, have ruled on numerous occasions, when other not so serious questions have been raised of this type and when it has been said that there should be papers available in the Library, "I will


give orders that they are made available ". Unless someone gives that order now, we shall be precluded from carrying out our Parliamentary duties. That may well be a breach of privilege. I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to look at this with a view to seeing whether this is not the case in this instance.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. This raises another point. The Library belongs to the House of Commons. The authority in charge of the Library on our behalf is Mr. Speaker. If the Library has a document which is considered to be helpful to a Member carrying out his duties, and if the Library is not prepared to provide such document to any Member, have we not the right to call for Mr. Speaker and ask him whether he, who is in charge of the Library on our behalf, has given the Library instructions not to produce this document?

Mr. Hugh Fraser: There is a serious point here concerning the rights of all Members as to documents in the Library. Either there should be a statement by the Government and the production of this document or the Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee should be asked to report to the House immediately. This is a direct infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons. This is a very serious matter, and the right hon. Gentleman who is the custodian of Members' rights in the Library should be sent for.

Mr. Charles Pannell: A reading of the document makes the position perfectly plain. It is certainly open to any hon. Member to get all this information by his own research. I understand why my hon. Friends have done it. There is no doubt that the Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir David Stephens, gave this information to the Library on the basis of confidentiality. If he did not want it to be divulged, he should not have given it. Once the information is given to the Library, Sir David Stephens is not in a position to protect it. Information cannot be given for one reason and declined for another. It cannot be given for some statistical purpose—statistics can be used to prove any argument—and then be with-

held because it might be inconvenient to an individual peer.
The House of Commons is a sovereign place. I therefore take it, Mr. Gourlay, that you will raise this matter with Mr. Speaker with a view to his informing the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Library that this information should be imparted to the House of Commons. No doubt Mr. Speaker will know his duty, which is to make this information available to Members. That is crystal clear. It may well be that the Clerk of the Parliaments is rather more sensitive to his own establishment than he would be for the rights of ours. To paraphrase a famous remark which Bonar Law made to a predecessor of Mr. Speakers, "I would not attempt to tell you your duty, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure I know my own ". I am sure that we know our own duty, which is to instruct the Library, which is our servant, to give us the information.

Mr. Peyton: It seems an odd and bizarre situation that we have got into that in the Library which, at least notion-ally, belongs to the House of Commons there is a document which Members are not allowed to see because it has been issued to the Library as confidential. One is only led to assume from the fact that the Government will not give us this information that it must be embarrassing for them.
Mr. Gourlay, you are being asked in this point of order to allow a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. The least perceptive of us will understand that this is somewhat embaras-sing for you in the absence of much progress this afternoon. I want particularly to ask for your guidance as to whether there is not another remedy besides a Motion to report Progress. Could we have a Motion to send for persons and papers? I accept that such a Motion is not usual. It is very odd that the House of Commons should be forced into taking the formal step of sending for a piece of paper which, at any rate nominally, is already under its control.
You will recollect, Mr. Gourlay, that on every occasion when the House of Commons appoints a Select Committee from among its membership it confers upon that Select Committee the power to send for persons and papers. Therefore, it would be of interest to the Committee if


we could have a ruling now as to whether a Motion to send for persons and this particular paper would be admissible as an alternative or as an addendum to the Motion to report Progress. The Committee would be very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Gourlay.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order, and to your last Ruling, Mr. Gourlay. You said that it is not necessary for a Minister to produce a document if he summarised it and did not quote from it. This is not what happened, because, according to the Under-Secretary, the Secretary of State for Social Services told the Committee the only bits of the document which were relevant to the discussion then in hand. The right hon. Gentleman patently did not summarise the document, because he left out all the rest of the document relating to other matters. As he quoted figures, he quoted from the document. Therefore, according to the ordinary rules of the House of Commons, and in accordance with your last Ruling, now that it is established that a document exists it is incumbent upon the Secretary of State to produce it.
I once had the honour to serve on the Library Sub-Committee of the House. I always received the fullest co-operation from the Library. It never occurred to me or to any other member of the Library Sub-Committee that the Library was anything but the servant of the House of Commons as a whole. It certainly never occurred to any of us that the Executive by its say-so could prohibit an hon. Member from seeing a document that was in existence. I therefore hope, Mr. Gourlay, that by whatever means are most appropriate you will see that this does not happen again and that the document is now produced for us.

The Deputy Chairman: I will deal with the two points of order which have been raised up to this stage. The point of order dealing with the document does not arise, since at no point has a Minister in the Chamber quoted from any document. Any reference has been made by way of summary or selection of figures from a document, so that the production of the document on the Table does not arise. The question of the document in the Library is not a matter for the Chair-

man of this Committee. It is a matter for the Services Committee.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Will you deal with the very important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that there is clearly a document in the Library, that it relates to attendances of peers in a particular Session of Parliament, and that the only reason why Members cannot have access to it is that the figures might embarrass certain individual peers whose attendance is not what it might be? If there is a document containing that kind of information, it is clear that individual Members of the House of Commons can acquire that kind of information by long individual research themselves. Therefore, the only reason this document is not being produced is that presumably the authorities that be know that it will involve Members of the House of Commons in considerable and irrelevant research which they need not undertake if the document were made available.
The Library is our property. Everything in it is our property. My right hon. Friend asked quite reasonably that Mr. Speaker should direct the staff of the Library to disclose this information, which in any event we could obtain for ourselves by our own considerable research.
If that is not acceptable, an alternative which may be acceptable is that the House should now adjourn so that right hon. and hon. Members might do their own individual researches to obtain the information which is now denied to them but which is contained in the document. I hope, Mr. Gourlay, that you will address yourself to that solution to the problem.

Sir D. Glover: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Surely, what was said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) about the document in the Library is entirely valid, and I should like to have your guidance on this matter. It is now a considerable time since the point was first raised, and there is no doubt that the Committee is at one in being seized of the matter on both sides—there is no division save, possibly, between the Front Benches—and in being very angry at being deprived of


services which it feels it has the right to expect and demand.
If another Motion were moved, would you now reconsider the matter, Mr. Gourlay, in order to give the Committee a chance to take the necessary action through the usual channels to see that the document is released for the service of hon. and right hon. Members? Alternatively, if you are not prepared to accept such a Motion, I should like your advice on how we could go back into the House, with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, who is, I believe, the only person who can take a decision in this matter. It must be the House sitting as a House, not as a Committee, and with Mr. Speaker in the Chair.
As we are now dealing with a matter of some constitutional importance, I urge that we should proceed no further with the Bill until Mr. Speaker in the Chair has given a Ruling about the document and said whether he would take steps, he being our protector in this matter, to see that the document is immediately released from the Library. Further consideration of the Bill in Committee cannot proceed otherwise.
I ask now, Mr. Gourlay, whether the Clerk could help the Committee in seeing what sort of Motion would be necessary for that procedure to take place, so that Mr. Speaker might act, as he has done from time immemorial, as the protector of the rights and interests of individual Members.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. It is out of order to invoke the assistance of the Clerk in open Chamber. He gives what advice he likes, and it is up to the House or the Committee whether it accepts it. However, there is one other person who should be here, and that is the Leader of the House. In my view, the usual channels should bring in the Leader of the House without delay. What are they waiting for? Someone must fetch the Leader of the House. Otherwise, we shall not make any progress. That is what the usual channels are there for. I hope that someone will get on his way. Otherwise, I shall speak until the Leader of the House comes.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: That would be out of order.

Mr. Pannell: All right. My hon. Friend has not been here long enough—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order.

Mr. Pannell: I am on my point of order, Mr. Gourlay. It is, in effect, the will of the House which is being expressed. If we were to move into a sitting of the House, with Mr. Speaker present, and if the Leader of the House expressed the will of the House, I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker would bow to it because he is our servant, if he is anything at all. I ask, therefore, that the Leader of the House come here. Otherwise, we shall face a procedural difficulty.
I have been in this situation before, when someone has asked that the Leader of the House be present. Whoever has been the representative of the usual channels present on the Front Bench has taken himself off to acquaint the Leader of the House with what was happening in the Chamber. I think that it is a discourtesy unless the Lord Commissioner moves to do what we wish. We shall remain in great difficulty. No one wants to filibuster or hold up the Committee. You cannot leave the Chair easily, Mr. Gourlay—we understand that—and you cannot suddenly by Resolution meet what has been said. The only one who can unblock the usual channels and tell Mr. Speaker is, I suggest, the Leader of the House, who is the leader of Government business. I ask, therefore, that he be acquanited without further ado and that he comes here. I have no doubt that he will come, because he is an agreeable man.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is for the Chair to select hon. Members to speak. Sir Harmar Nicholls.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: There is a lot of point in the argument just submitted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). It is within the recollection of the Committee, Mr. Gourlay, that you said that no Minister had quoted figures and, on that ground, you could not use your power as Chairman of the Committee to ask that a document be


produced. You went on to say that the existence of a document and our rights as Members to have it here is not a matter within your competence and that, as Chairman of the Committee, you could do nothing to rectify the omission, if, indeed, there be an omission.
We recognise your impotence in these circumstances, Mr. Gourlay, and we have a lot of sympathy with you, but, that being the situation as you have explained it, it is unreasonable to expect the Committee to proceed until it has the matter settled or until it is satisfied that the document will not be relevant and helpful to it in the decisions which it has to take. On those new grounds, therefore, I suggest that it would be proper for the Chair favourably to consider accepting the Motion to report Progress, so that we could have the Mace back on the Table and Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Mr. Speaker has the competence and power, as the one in charge of the Library, to see that the document is put into the hands of those hon. Members who require it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point of order put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). All who have listened to these points of order during the past hour since the question of the document was first raised must recognise that the Committee is faced with a serious situation. We seek to extricate the Committee from its difficulty, within the rules of order. My right hon. Friend rightly said that the presence of the Leader of the House is essential to assist us, but, with the greatest respect, Mr. Gourlay, even if the Leader of the House were here, it would not necessarily be possible for him to assist us on a point of order. That might well be out of order. As far as I can see, the only way to deal with this matter is by acceptance of the Motion to report Progress.
If the Leader of the House were here, and if he were to make a fairly lengthy statement about the document and his view in regard to it solely on a point of order, that might be ruled out of order. If we are to deal with the matter fully, and if the Leader of the House is to address us in order to allay the anxieties felt throughout the Committee, the only

way in which that can properly be done is on a Motion to report Progress.
I suggest, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, that new considerations have arisen since you last ruled on the matter. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West is of essential importance. Plainly, we must have a member of the Cabinet here to make a statement. Either the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Social Services should be here. I suggest that the best way to make it possible for one or other of them to assist the Committee would be on a Motion to report Progress. We should then be able to dispose of the question of the document, the Government would be able to state their view about it, and right hon. and hon. Members would have opportunity to comment. The discussion would then be in order. If, however, we continue trying to deal with a matter so complex as this on points of order, we shall not solve anything according to the rules of the House.
Once again, therefore, Mr. Gourlay, in order to deal with the question and have a statement from the Front Bench which is in order, I urge that you accept the Motion put originally by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

Mr. Powell: Before you rule on the submission that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has just made to you, Mr. Gourlay, may I put to you a further point which reinforces it? Since you last ruled on this question, the Committee has had a second brief intervention from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who made an important disclosure. He referred to the statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services, reported at c. 1837 of HANSARD of 26th February, which has already been referred to several times. The right hon. Gentleman said that the calculations which he would make available to his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) were long and complicated. The Under-Secretary this afternoon, after a considerable time, disclosed, or appeared to disclose, that the only part of those long and complicated calculations which could be relevant to our debate on Clause 4 was that stated in six lines by the right hon. Gentleman in c. 1844.
In other words, not to put too fine a point upon it, on 26th February the Secretary of State for Social Services was bluffing the Committee, attempting to convey to his hon. Friend and the Committee that there was a vast series of information on the subject and bearing on the topic which could be made available. We thus have a contradiction which should be resolved, and which can only be resolved by a proper statement from the Government Front Bench on a matter which bears on the deliberations of the Committee.
On this ground also, I would ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to enable us to put ourselves in order and have the matter clarified by accepting the Motion that we should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have listened with considerable interest to the points raised, but, in my discretion, I am not prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Ray Mawby: Further to that point of order, the last thing I want to do is to question your decision, Mr. Gourlay. But a constitutional question is involved. The Minister has given us enough detail of a document which is within the confines of the Palace of Westminster and which should be in the control of us as a sovereign Parliament. But someone who is not even a member of the House of Commons has decided that Members of this Committee should not have the figures it contains available to them when discussing this matter now.
I seem to remember that at the beginning of each Session we tend to suggest that actions such as this can constitute a grave misdemeanour when someone refuses to give the House information it requires. I believe that it is in order, and it ought to be in order, for us to take whatever action is necessary to make certain that that document, which is in the Library, should be available to every member of the Committee. Failing that, we should take the point made by an hon. Member opposite earlier and at least have time for each and every one of us to go to the Library to do our individual researches. Then we could individually find the figures, however long it may take us, which we could find if the document were made available.
Therefore, with all humility, I ask you, Mr. Gourlay, to reconsider your decision purely on the constitutional question of whether it is possible for the Committee to continue discussing the matter intelligently before it has had before it the document which is obviously available in the Library. I quite understand your position. If it is impossible for you to give the necessary instructions that the document should be made available, the only thing we can do is to move to report progress and to bring in Mr. Speaker, who, being in charge of the Library, could give the necessary decision.
We should not be doing the nation's business properly if we continued to discuss the Bill before having before us the document which we now have evidence is available within the Palace of Westminster and is in our control. Yet, by the action of an outside person, we are prevented from seeing it.

Mr. Sheldon: Over the past two or three weeks I have spent some time in testing the assumption of the model on which the House of Lords was to be created, and which is particularly embodied in the Amendment under consideration. As a result, I set in chain a number of projects designed to assist us in trying to find whether the model selected by the Government was a good one, or even if it was just adequate.
I have come to conclusions different from that of the Government, and I have a very strong factual background which I propose to use if I catch your eye in the debate on the Amendment, Mr. Gourlay. But the crucial document, that which is more important than any other, is a document that my right hon. Friend said he would make available, and its absence makes a really serious investigation extremely difficult. Now that he is here, I must ask him whether he will reconsider the matter and make the document available to us.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I apologise to the Committee. I had a really unavoidable engagement outside, but I came back directly it was over.
At no point did I talk about a document; I talked about figures we had, which I was prepared to make available, and did make available straight away that


evening. They were figures that we had in our notes. I gather that since then my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has been discussing the situation with our Librarian. He did not tell me about it. The first time I heard about it was this afternoon. It would have been easier for me if I had known. I understand that none of the figures with which we are dealing is secret.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend asked me to reply to him.

Mr. Sheldon: I should just like to intervene on this point. It was not a discourtesy to him. I took this matter up with the Leader of the House of Lords, who I thought was more directly responsible.

Mr. Crossman: I was talking about our Librarian. My hon. Friend talked to the Librarian and I gather that he was told that in the Research Department of the Library there was a document which had been provided by the other place on the basis of confidence.
I said from the start that I have no earthly interest in preventing people from seeing the basis of calculation on these subjects. I think that what my hon. Friend was told by the Library Clerk was very much in order. He was told that the document was available on a confidential basis, and that he could not reveal it here. The most sensible proposal would be—

Mr. John Mendelson: It was confidential to whom?

Mr. Crossman: It had been passed to the Research Department on a confidential basis. My hon. Friend will confirm that. I am explaining the situation as I have learnt it only in the course of this afternoon. My hon. Friend must not think that I am acting in bad faith here.

Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?

Mr. Crossman: I think that it will be as well if I try to make a statement.

Mr. Mendelson: Confidential to whom?

Mr. Crossman: I gather that this research from the House of Lords is in the Research Department of the House of Commons, and has been lent for research purposes. When my hon. Friend requested the use of it, he was told that he could see it on a confidential basis, but that it was not a laid document.

Mr. Mendelson: Confidential to whom?

Mr. Crossman: I am making a suggestion to the Committee. I did not know of the existence of the document. If it is the feeling of the Committee that it should be laid and that we should study it, the most courteous thing for us to do would be to send a message to the other place suggesting that it should be laid as a document on the Table here. I would be prepared to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to join me in sending the request to the House of Lords that it be made available as a document for the debate.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has been most helpful. It would be very useful, though the procedure he suggested is a little cumbrous, if a message were sent to another place asking for permission to use the document. I must seek your guidance, Mr. Gourlay, about what we are to do now. The contents of this document were quoted by the right hon. Gentleman himself in our debate on the Amendment which is now before us. As the right hon. Gentleman quoted them and the then occupant of the Chair did not call him to order, I must assume that they are relevant to this Amendment.
The procedure which the right hon. Gentleman adumbrated may take a little time. We are, nonetheless, told that something which is relevant to this Amendment can be made available to us at some moment in the future. But I seek your help, Mr. Gourlay, as to what the Committee are to do now. If we are to proceed with this Amendment, which we may discuss for some little time, it is unlikely that this document will be made available before the Patronage Secretary moves the Closure. Therefore, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, would you accept a Motion to report Progress, so that we may not


continue with this Amendment until information which the right hon. Gentleman himself has accepted as relevant to the Amendment is before the Committee?

Mr. Crossman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. I have, at present, no evidence that the figures I quoted were an extract from this document which is in our research place. They came from our document which we are using as the basis for research—[Interruption.]—Let me repeat: I quoted the figures that we had available here. I now hear, for the first time, this afternoon, that there is available in the Research Department here a document from the House of Lords which almost certainly also includes the same figures as I had. Therefore, I do not know how far this document, which my right hon. Friend heard was in the Library and which was offered to him for examination, is relevant. It may be a very relevant document. I took the figures which in our view were the relevant figures, and I still maintain that they were relevant. There may be others, but I quoted in good faith—[Interruption.]

Sir Cyril Osborne: From what?

Mr. Crossman: I had some notes here and I quoted from them. There seems to be an extraordinary desire to create mystery. In the debate some days ago, I was asked on what figures I based my statement. I then said that I would read aloud the figures that I had in my notes. I read the figures that we had and said that they were the essential extracts. My hon. Friend has gone into great research and discovered that in the Library there exists a document which I have not yet seen but which almost certainly, if it is on the same subject, has the same figures in it. There is no more mystery than that.

Mr. Powell: On a point of order. Some time ago, Mr. Gourlay, you advised the Committee that, so far as the Chair was concerned, there was no document in existence and that no document had been quoted by the Minister, that the Minister had merely put certain figures before the Committee. If I may respectfully say so, many hon. Members would not have said otherwise than you did on

that occasion. Since then, the right hon. Gentleman has told the Committee two things perfectly clearly and perfectly definitely—that there was a document which he referred to in the hearing of the Committee as "our document", in contrast to a document in the Library, and that he quoted from that document—he used the word "quote"—and that he offered the House extracts. Now that it has been established, upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that a Minister has quoted extracts to this Committee from a document which exists in the possession of the Government, I ask that you should instruct that the Orders of the House in this respect are complied with.

Mr. Michael Foot: The point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is extremely serious and returns to one of the original points of order this afternoon. I earnestly plead to you, Mr. Gourlay, that we should put our discussion in order. I submit seriously that the statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services, although it has greatly assisted the Committee in more ways than one, was a statement which was barely in order, because it was not a discussion of how we should proceed immediately but a reference to the document itself and to a comparison between documents, and it was a statement that the Minister would be glad, at some future stage, to provide the Committee with certain facilities.
I suggest that such a statement as that would have been much more in order if it had been made on the basis of the Minister himself moving to report Progress. That would also give the House the opportunity, which, after all, this Motion is designed to give the House in such circumstances, to comment upon a statement of a Minister of this importance. Therefore, if we are to avoid the difficulties of false points of order and people being prevented from elaborating serious arguments, if we are to address ourselves to the immediate question which arises from the Secretary of State's statement—that is, whether it is right and proper for the Committee to proceed with the Bill until we have received this information and until it is available to all hon. Members—it would be much better for this discussion to take place on the


Motion to report Progress. That is the only way in which this discussion can be put in order and the Committee can be enabled to proceed in an orderly manner.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. It is a matter for the Chair to decide the application of the rules of order and not one for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). I applied the same latitude to the Minister as to all other hon. Members who have raised points of order this afternoon; otherwise, possibly, the debate would have been much shorter.

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State turned round a few moments ago and said that he must not be accused of saying anything in bad faith. I do not know what gave him that idea. I simply interrupted when he used the term "confidential to them", and asked "Confidential to whom?" There was no question of bad faith, and if he came to that mistaken conclusion, I can only think that he was a little too sensitive.
The point at issue is a simple one but my right hon Friend must answer it. That is, how can it be that another place or an officer of another place supplies a document to an administrator in this House and makes it, ipso facto, confidential? That is what my right hon. Friend has said—that it was given to the members of the Library or the Research Department, a sub-department of the Library, as being confidential. Does that mean that hon. Members of this House, in matters concerning their own business, are precluded from examining this kind of evidence?
To whom is it confidential? For instance, the Library sometimes—rightly—gives scholars who are not Members of the House permission to come here and engage in research. Would it be open to the Librarian to give this document or show these facts and figures to such a research student while refusing them to others? Is it possible that it is confidential to an officer of the House, although there is no authority to any member of the administration of another place to make such a decision that it is confidential only to them? My right hon. Friend must clear up this point first before we discuss the major issue which is involved.

Mr. Crossman: I am sorry if I was hasty. I have now checked again about the situation. It is difficult for me, because it is second-hand, but I think that this is the situation. The hon. Gentleman went to the Library, and asked for the information. The Library then approached the other place and the other place said that it would make the information available on a confidential basis. This I gather is exactly what happened. That is all I know. That is the so-called document. It was not there at the time when it was asked for. It was made available. My hon. Friend said that he would rather not read it on a confidential basis and that is why we are discussing it now. If there is this document, we should suggest to the House of Lords that it should be made available to us for public discussion.
I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that, if there is a document, there is only one, for which he asked from the House of Lords. As for my reference, the document I was referring to was my notes.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Crossman: It happens to be true. It is difficult for me not to be impatient, because it is perfectly clear that there are some people who simply want to mystify for mystifications sake. There is no mystery at all. What happened the other night was that I said:
It may be for the convenience of the Committee to shorten the discussion. I made no reference to a document; I have referred to figures. There is no secrecy about these figures. They are figures which anyone can obtain by studying the attendances in the Lords during the last five or six years ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1842.]
I then read aloud the section of the figures I thought relevant and which I had available.
My hon. Friend now says that he has obtained from the Librarian knowledge that the other place could have made available to him, on a confidential basis, certain information which the House of Lords has. I have suggested to the Committee that, if it is the Committee's wish, this information, instead of being made available on a confidential basis, should be made available to the Committee as a whole.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay. All that may or may not be so, and to a certain extent the Secretary of State has helped the Committee in that, as was pointed out some time ago, he has now offered to send to another place to see whether we can get hold of this document. That is not the point. The point was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) some time ago, and you will surely not be prepared to represent to the Committee, Mr. Gourlay, that we should continue, or that we are in a position to continue, this important discussion before seeing this document? No one who has listened to these points of order would deny that on both sides of the Committee there is great interest in what it contains. I cannot see how we can continue this debate without the document We are seeking your guidance now as to how to fill in the time. How else can we do so other than move to report Progress?
The only other point of order I would seek to make is that when we were listening to the Secretary of State it seemed that he confounded confusion by producing yet another document, which he now calls his notes. It lies in the memory of most of us who were in Committee at the time that the right hon. Gentleman in referring to the figures quoted them as coming from "our document ".

Mr. Crossman: I quoted verbatim exactly what I said.

Mr. Hastings: The Secretary of State seemed to be accusing hon. Members on both sides, or some hon. Members on one or the other side of the Committee, of seeking in these points of order to mystify for the sake of mystification. That cannot go by without remark. In the last hour and a quarter I have not heard any point of order which could possibly lay itself open to the kind of accusation that has been made. In the interests of the progress of the Bill, and of the spirit in the Committee, which up to now, in spite of this very great difficulty we are in, has been remarkably temperate, the Secretary of State should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gourlay. In view of the statement

made by my right hon. Friend, that he agrees that the document ought to be made available to the Committee and should be laid on the Table of the House, and since it is quite obvious that such a document is absolutely essential before we begin to discuss the Amendments, and as all hon. Members would like to look at this document closely, it seems that we have reached a position where, while you are not prepared to accept the Motion to report Progress, Mr. Gourlay, we really ought to suspend the Sitting while the document is obtained, laid before the House, duplicated and perused by all hon. Members. After a suitable period of time has elapsed, I suggest that we could proceed to discuss the Amendment.
As to the very mystifying document, the other document which my right hon. Friend suggested was only his notes, I will not raise that, but I ask that in the circumstances the Committee should be suspended forthwith pending production of the document.

5.45 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Before I make my point of order, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to put himself correct with the Committee. For him to suggest that he did not say that he referred to "our document" is wrong, and it is within the recollection of all of us. It may have been a slip of the tongue; if so, let him say so. To make that comment and then deny it when it is within the memory of all of us is not in the traditions of the Committee.
My point of order, Mr. Gourlay, is that it has been made clear that there is a document in the Library. The Library belongs to the Committee and the Committee is of the opinion that the information in that document would help it carry out its duties. At that point the situation of the Chair comes into consideration. We are very jealous of the situation of the Chair, and of the reputation of its present occupant. We do not want that to come into question. If the Chair could see its way clear to accept the Motion to report Progress, which would be the same as a suspension, and then the Committee voted upon it, if the Committee voted against seeing the document the onus would rest upon the Committee and the Parliamentary position would be safeguarded.
But as at this minute it is the Chair which is frustrating the Committee in having sight of a doument which it ought to have, I would suggest to the Chair that it could perhaps reconsider its decision, accept the Motion, and then let a vote of the Committee decide what will happen. That would put the Chair in a much clearer and more satisfactory position.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Whoever may be frustrating the Committee, it is certainly not the Chair.

Sir John Rodgers: I should like to ask for your judgment, Mr. Gourlay, on the remark of the Secretary of State, and whether it is in order to accuse hon. Members, in raising points of order, of mystifying for the sake of mystification. That seems to be an insult to all hon. Members. The Secretary of State has definitely said that there is a document—indeed that it is in the House of Commons—from the House of Lords, that he understands it is classified as "confidential" and that he is willing at some future date to approach the House of Lords and see whether this document can be downgraded from "confidential" and made available to members of the Committee. Arguments galore have been put forward proving that it is essential for the proper consideration of these Amendments that this document should be available. I therefore appeal to the Secretary of State to move the adjournment of the House so that he can go through the processes which he is willing to do, approach the other place to see whether the document can be declassified and then allow us two, three or four days to study the document. Then we can proceed with the Bill.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I apologise to the Committee for having missed the first 25 minutes of the points of order. The Secretary of State has helped the Committee to some extent, but he has put us into greater confusion by referring to his notes. Where did he get the information contained in his notes? Did he get the confidential document in the Library?
Having referred to the document, the Secretary of State did not say whether he would produce it. He said that he would ask for the document to be produced in the future. I do not see how

the Committee can proceed with its business until it has the document. Requests have been made to the Patronage Secretary, in his absence, that he should send for the Leader of the House, who is the only Cabinet Minister able effectively to deal with the problem. If I may have the attention of the Patronage Secretary—is he reading the document?—[Laughter.]. The Leader of the House is a courteous Member of the House whose one desire is to oblige the Committee. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the position we are in, but perhaps one of the Whips on duty could be asked to go for the Leader of the House, and if he were able to come along I am sure he would save a lot of time and many points of order.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the points of order. May I stress a further point which may not have occurred to those who have not participated so closely in the Bill? The figures refer directly to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), which at a later stage we may reach. If we proceed with that Amendment on the basis of not having obtained the figures, we shall be in the extremely invidious position of seeking to proceed with the debate upon the basis that the Minister in charge has said that he thinks it is right that such evidence should be available to us. He has tried to help the Committee in this matter.
In parenthesis, I accept what my right hon. Friend says about which documents he has had and which he has not had, but nobody can deny, and he has said it as plainly as he can, that he thinks it is desirable, if the Committee wishes it, that the document should be at the disposal of the Committee. What the Minister has said was not referring to the procedure of the Bill as a whole; it was referring directly to the procedure of this Amendment. If we proceed with the Amendment now we shall be debating a matter in the absence of a document which the Minister has said should be available to us. We shall also be proceeding to debate it on the basis that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will have to recite again the procedure of what happened when he went to the Library and why he refused, in my belief rightly, to accept the document with the limitations of confidentiality.
Mr. Gourlay, with the utmost respect to the Chair, it would be most undesirable if this controversy should involve controversy about the attitude of the Chair. I do not make the proposition that any backbencher, least of all myself. would have the right to rule on any of these questions; of course not. But I seriously suggest that the only way in which we can escape from this difficulty is to have a discussion in which we are not merely raising matters on points of order but are enabled to discuss the ramifications which arise.
If we do that, we shall put the proceedings in better order, and in such a way that points of order would not be pressed. We should then be able to discover, being fully in order, how soon the document would be available, and whether it would be available in time for us to proceed with the Amendment later today. We should be able to discover all these things according to the proper procedures of the House, procedures that have been designed precisely to deal with such emergencies as this. At certain times the House may reach a point when it cannot properly proceed with its business on the original basis and a Motion to report progress may be moved. The House is flexible, and I submit, with all respect, that the Chair must also be flexible.
I hope that we can put the matter in order, but if we do not, and if it is ruled by the Chair that we must not debate this matter on the Motion to report Progress, we shall then have to proceed to the Amendment and discuss it on the basis of the absence of information which my hon. Friend thinks it is essential for the Committee to have, and which the Minister, who has also seen the information, says it is advisable for us to have. Only my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the Secretary of State for Social Services know what is in the document. It may be that the Attorney-General knows something about it, but he has kept it very well concealed from the Committee if he does. However that may be, I earnestly plead that we should be enabled to put the matter in order, and, if nobody else will, the best thing would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to move the Motion, and we should then see whether he would have

a better chance of getting it accepted than would other hon. Members.

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend has said that his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) knew that the document was essential and that I did. I have no idea what is in the document, or even that it is a document. I know that my hon. Friend asked for certain data from the Research Department, that he was told that it was available on a confidential basis, and that he did not want to have it revealed on a confidential basis. I have no notion of what the information is, nor am I, therefore, aware whether or not it is relevant to the Amendment. All I was saying was that when any hon. Friend of mine says that he wants information made available I am on balance in favour of doing so, not because I know it to be relevant but because I want to be courteous to my hon. Friend and make such information available.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: On a separate point of order, Mr. Gourlay. Like many other back-benchers, I have for a long time been worried about the restriction of rights of back-benchers. There is more to this question than the availability of statistics, although that is essentially important, and that is the restriction of the right of a back-bencher to have made available to him something which is in the House of Commons Library and which becomes our property.
Mr. Gourlay, you said very rightly that you have no jurisdiction and no powers over matters affecting that document, but one person in this House has, and I refer to Mr. Speaker. He is the guardian of our rights. I think that the simplest way out of the deplorable mess into which the Committee has got itself is for you to look at the possibility of suspending this Sitting. Whether or not that is in your power, you have to decide. I think that it is within your power. If it is not and not within the rules of order, as we are ruled in this House largely by precedents I suggest that we create a precedent.
I think that we should suspend for some time, that you should report to Mr. Speaker, that we should have Mr. Speaker back in the Chair, with the Leader of the House and the appropriate Ministers present, and settle this question


of the document once and for all so that the debate can proceed in the ordinary way.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: Mr. Gourlay, I wish to support the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and ask him that we should be allowed to put ourselves in order and under proper procedure.
I notice that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has just left the Chamber—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reappear because his presence is relevant to this discussion. We have heard many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite proposing that the Committee should be allowed to put itself in order, but customarily such a request and such a Motion is not suggested from the back benches opposite. It carries much more weight if such a proposal is made from the Front Bench—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Why should it?

Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) asks the relevant question, "Why should it?" There is, of course, no reason why it should. The fact remains that it does. Such a Motion carries more force if it is moved from one of the Front Benches.
In the interests of putting the Committee in order and in proper procedure, the right hon. Member for Barnet should move the Motion. There may be something hindering him from that. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend are so much involved in this matter—I hesitate to use the expression "in cahoots", though it is a time-honoured Parliamentary phrase—that he does not wish to do his proper constitutional job and move this Motion. We cannot force him to, but I suggest that in normal circumstances if such a Motion came from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, you, Mr. Gourlay, following tradition and precedent, could give that much more attention and weight to it.
If that does not happen, and if my right hon. Friend is not prepared to move such a Motion, then the only remaining course is for hon. Members to take matters

more into their own hands and press such a Motion. In view of the weight behind this request and the reluctance of both Front Benches to exercise their normal function and move a Motion to report Progress, I suggest that you, Mr. Gourlay, should give serious consideration to the proposal.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Mr. Gourlay, I wonder whether I can assist the Committee and you in particular in resolving this dilemma? I apologise for not having been present throughout the whole of the period covered by these points of order. I have been attending a steering meeting of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee which, I think, has done rather better work today than this Committee has done—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Sir D. Glover: That is a reflection on the Chair. Withdraw.

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Gourlay, that was no reflection on the Chair. It was a remark addressed to the Committee on the basis of the speeches on points of order that I have heard since I entered the Chamber.
As I understand it, we are dealing with points of order. We are not discussing a Motion to report progress. These points of order centre on whether a particular document which is in the Library of the House of Commons should be produced before the debates on this Amendment and those which follow it are allowed to proceed.
Certain hon. Members have suggested to you that, if you wish to do so, you have the power to suspend the proceedings of the Committee. That, surely, is a matter of fact which can be settled easily—

The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps I might assist the hon. Gentleman. I have no power to suspend the sitting. However, it is within my power to accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Lubbock: That, at any rate, clears away one point which has been troubling the Committee. One hon. Member on this side suggested that you have the power to suspend the sitting and that you should exercise that power in order that the document might be produced. Now we know that you do not have any such


power. Therefore, we can come on to the other points of order raised by hon. Members on both sides, and it would be for the convenience of the Committee if those points of order could be disposed of as they occur. I have heard several hon. Members on each side of the Committee making the same point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

The Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman would come quickly to his point of order, the Chair could give a Ruling in his case.

Mr. Lubbock: I will come to my point of order. Hon. Members have all prefaced their remarks by saying that theirs is a fresh point of order. My point of order is this, and I trust that you will be able to give a Ruling on it without allowing hon. Members opposite to leap in and pursue it under the guise of making fresh points of order—

Sir D. Glover: That is a reflection on the Chair. Withdraw.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Gourlay—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I am already being addressed on a point of order.

Mr. Lubbock: This document has been referred to as being in the Library of the House of Commons, but the Secretary of State for Social Services assured the Committee that it was not within his knowledge that these figures existed and that he was merely quoting from his notes. Therefore, he is not compelled to produce this document, as provided by Erskine May, and no points of order arise—

Sir D. Glover: We have had all this.

Mr. Lubbock: No point of order arises as to that document—

Sir D. Glover: We had all this hours ago.

Mr. Lubbock: I am merely making a suggestion. If the Secretary of State quotes figures which he has in his notes, I do not see how he can be asked to lay those notes before the Committee in printed form. Yesterday evening, I made a very interesting speech on the number

of sites provided for gipsies. I did not have time to get out all the figures, but I was not asked to lay them before the House—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman is not a Minister, and never will be.

Mr. Lubbock: I was not—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the Committee will allow the Chair to hear the point of order.

Mr. Lubbock: My point of order is just as much a point of order as those to which I have listened this afternoon. I suggest that we are making very heavy weather of it if every time that a Minister produces figures out of courtesy to the House and because he thinks that they will assist hon. Members in arriving at a conclusion on an Amendment, he is asked to produce some non-existent document from which he is alleged to be quoting. The fact that some other document exists in the House of Commons Library, which may or may not contain figures similar to those used by the Secretary of State, is absolutely irrelevant.

Mr. Heller: The hon. Gentleman might think so.

Mr. Lubbock: Therefore, I suggest that the debate should be allowed to proceed on the Amendment—[Interruption.] If it then appears to the Committee, in its wisdom, that sufficient information has not been provided to enable it to arrive at a conclusion, then any hon. Member is at liberty to move the Motion to report progress, and if, having listened to the debate, you, Mr. Gourlay, in your wisdom, decide that not sufficient information has been provided to enable the Committee to reach a conclusion, you could accept such a Motion and the Committee could come to a decision whether to report Progress. Would not that be a much better way to approach this problem than having to listen to endless points of order throughout the night?

The Deputy Chairman: I take it that the hon. Member is not moving to report Progress. Mr. Michael Foot.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Michael Footrose—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I have called Mr. Michael Foot. Other hon. Members should resume their seats.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Gourlay, would you be prepared at this stage to accept a Motion to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again?

The Deputy Chairman: Having considered the points of order which have been raised during the past hour or so, I am now prepared to accept such a Motion.

Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I think the Committee will be eternally grateful to you, Mr. Gourlay, for accepting the Motion. If there were any doubts about the desirability of such a Motion being accepted, the remarks of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) were conclusive. He made it clear that it would be impossible for the Committee to proceed in an orderly manner, particularly because some hon. Members who had not been present in the earlier part of these proceedings—and he has honourably admitted being one—were coming forward to tell us how we should proceed. I do not think that was a proper way for the Committee to proceed.
We have been through a period during which we have had many revelations made which need to be sorted out and cleared up in the interests of the Committee both on this occasion and on future occasions. Therefore, I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services comes to speak on the Motion, as I presume he will, he will survey the events that have occurred over the past hour or so, relate them to what occurred before, and recognise the serious concern and reasons why we believe it is necessary for the matter to be reconsidered.
As I said on an earlier point of order, I am not questioning the good faith of my right hon. Friend in the way that he has presented these matters to the Committee. I am sure that the reason why he intervened when we were reaching the end of our proceedings on 26th February was to enlighten the Committee and, as he believed, to assist the proceedings. But

I am sure that he will agree that those of us who have followed the proceedings and consider this to be a very important Bill—a Bill to which we are thoroughly opposed but which we propose to examine with care—have some reason to consider that there is, at any rate, a superficial contradiction between some of the things that he said on 26th February.
My right hon. Friend said,
… I will consider making them "—
the figures—
available to him "—
my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—
although they are long and complicated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837.]
6.15 p.m.
Later, when he gave the figures, they proved to be brief and simple. Therefore, there was a conflict. This can happen to anybody late at night, but it happened to my right hon. Friend early in the evening.
I do not wish to make anything of a slip of the tongue, which I am sure it was when my right hon. Friend referred to "our document ". We have been discussing in his absence whether there was a document. When my right hon. Friend referred to "our document ", it naturally caused a sensation on the Treasury Bench—and some of the casualties have now left. That was one difficulty.
I am sure that was an entirely innocent remark. It was not done to deceive the Committee in any sense. Indeed, I believe that when the Committee considers what was said by my right hon. Friend in his interventions—and I think that they could have been even more extensive and clear had they been made on a Motion such as I am now moving rather than on points of order, and my right hon. Friend might not have found himself in these difficulties—in fairness it must be recognised by everyone that he had indeed offered to the Committee, in the plainest possible terms, a manner by which we should deal with this matter in a proper way.
He said that he was not complaining, that he had not been able to examine all these matters, but he understood that there was a document in the Library


which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne had talked about with the Librarian. My right hon. Friend said that he had not examined that document in detail and was not sure whether it accorded with his own notes, but if it contained important information he was strongly in favour, if the Committee wanted it, of its being made available.
In a subsequent intervention my right hon. Friend said, "Of course, I cannot judge whether the information is relevant or not ". Some of us presume to judge that it is bound to be relevant, because this information deals with the numbers of those who have been attending the House of Lords during the period 1967–68. This information presumably elaborates that point, which is the precise point with which we shall be dealing at some time on the Amendment. Therefore, I cannot understand the part of my right hon. Friend's statement when he imagines there is any dubiety about these figures being directly relevant to the debate. I believe that the Committee will come to the conclusion that these figures must be relevant to the Amendment. If that is the case, I suggest that the argument for the Motion which I am now moving is overwhelming. It would be an extremely peculiar situation if we decided to proceed further with the Bill tonight, because, although we do not know for certain, this evidence cannot be summarised briefly. It can be summarised in the sense that my right hon. Friend summarised it on the evening of 26th February, but it is not evidence which can be dealt with in that way. There would not have been the complications if that was the case.
The document contains lists of Members of the House of Lords, the occasions on which they have attended, and whether they were created peers or life peers. Presumably these are dissected in the document. Therefore, I submit that it is not a very brief document; it must be an elaborate affair. I suggest that we should have time to consider that document now.
I hone to have the support of the Opposition Front Bench. At Question time today the Leader of the Opposition was very testy with me when I suggested that we might today have had the debate on mortgage interest rates and tomorrow

and on some other occasion have a further debate about the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. The Leader of the Opposition jumped up and said that we should be interfering with the rights of hon. Members, that it would not give hon. Members time to consider the important questions that we are to debate tomorrow, and that it would be inconvenient for hon. Members. By that same test, how inconvenient is it that we should proceed tonight to discuss matters which will not have been properly assimilated by hon. Members?

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

I hope very much that, on consideration, the Government will support the Motion. I am glad that the Leader of the House has come in to assist our proceedings. Some of us wish to examine the figures involved in this Amendment. In previous discussions we have done our best to discover how these figures might have been arrived at. These figures of one-third, 72, and 230, are all interlocked and interdependent, and we have been trying to discover how they were arrived at. If one figure is altered, the others are altered.

Those three figures were involved with a fourth one, the figure of the amount of money which would be paid. Those four figures are, therefore, all dependent one on the other. The Government seem to have had a kind of four-pronged scale into which these figures were placed. One of the figures, the item dealing with salary to be paid, has been removed. Many of us argue that all the other figures are thereby altered, but in any case we have had no indication from the Government of how they arrived at these figures.

Did the Government start by saying, "We want a House of Lords of about 230 Members "? Or did they start by saying that Members of the other House must retire at 72? Or did they say that they must have attended one-third of the sittings to qualify before continuing to retain voting rights? One can start from each direction and arrive at the same result. Which was the number the Government first thought of? That is what we have to discover. These documents may reveal the answers, but for the life of me I have not been able to discover how these figures were ever devised.

I do not know whether they have such a common or garden utensil in Whitehall, but I think that it would have been much wiser to have settled all these matters with a Departmental pin. I think they would have arrived at much better results if they had done it that way. However, we are apparently advised by the Strabismical statisticians in Whitehall that this is the only way in which we can proceed. So much are we advised by them that this is the only way we can proceed that so far the Government have insisted that there shall be no Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to Dr. Strabismus of Utrecht?

Mr. Foot: He got his name from the squint-eyed statisticians in Whitehall. What I am seeking to show is that the Government have proceeded with this Bill by saying that these are the only figures which will arrive at the results they want, and they have then proceeded further, and this is the second reason why we should not continue with the Bill today.
The Government have suggested—or, shall we say, connived at?—an arrangement whereby no Amendments shall be accepted to the Bill. I can understand the sense of shock which goes through the Committee when I say that. It would be scandalous if a matter of such constitutional importance as this were to go through the Committee on the basis that no Amendments would be accepted, purely for the reason, as we shall all understand, that if the Government can get the Bill through on that basis they might be able to avoid a Report stage.
Our suspicions are fed—I am not sure which of my right hon. Friends is responsible for this, but I imagine that the Leader of the House must take the primary responsibility, although he must share it with the Home Secretary who has been absent hurt from our debate today—by the fact that some Government Amendments were placed on the Notice Paper and then removed. We cannot understand why that occurred, unless, of course, our suspicions are justified. We cannot understand why the Government put down Amendments to the Bill and then withdrew them when they found

that the Bill might be in some difficulties. Perhaps the Official Opposition could assist us on this aspect of the matter. My invitation not having been accepted, it seems that once again we are to be disappointed, and are not to receive any help from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It might reassure the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) if I tell him that three of the Home Secretary's deepest admirers have taken it upon themselves to replace on the Notice Paper two of those three Amendments, and, therefore, if the Chair in its wisdom decides in the process of selection to give the same attention to those three right hon. Members as it would have given to the Home Secretary it will be possible to debate those Amendments.

Mr. Foot: If an association of the deepest admirers of the Home Secretary is active in the House, I am staggered and rather resentful that I was not approached. Be that as it may, I am glad that these Amendments have been put down. I trust that the Government will give us an assurance that there is no arrangement for, and no idea of, pushing the Bill through without Amendment. It would be a most extraordinary state of affairs if that were to happen, particularly when one looks at the figures we are discussing.
It is suggested that the whole of the elaborate contrivance of the size of the future House of Lords, the age level of the future House of Lords and the attendance record of the future House of Lords should be dependent on some figures which refer to only one year's analysis. That is what it comes to. The figures that lie behind the analysis have so far been denied to the House, and on that extraordinary basis, on that tiny statistical point, this extraordinary pyramid in reverse has been erected. We are asked to accept this elaborate constitutional structure almost without Amendment, solely to suit the convenience of the Report stage which the Government may have in mind. This is the basis on which we are being asked to proceed.
I think that the Committee would be best according with its dignity if it insisted that the proceedings of the Bill shall go on no longer today, certainly


not until we have all had an opportunity of examining this evidence. We should not proceed until we have an undertaking from the Government that they will be prepared to accept Amendments from the Committee on this Clause and on future Clauses.
If we get all those undertakings from the Government it will not be necessary to proceed with the debate today. We can adjourn it to some future date, when many of those who have come into the discussion late will be able to acquaint themselves with the problems, and if there are merits in the case—although those who have attended these discussions most assiduously have not been able to discover them—we shall be able to discover them at some later stage.
In the meantime, I suggest that the Motion which I have moved is for the benefit of the Government, for the benefit of the Committee and for the benefit of hon. Members on both sides, and I hope that it will be received with universal acclaim.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very glad indeed, Sir, that your predecessor in the Chair after admittedly giving the matter a certain amount of consideration did in due course decide to accept the Motion to report Progress as moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It was certainly an example of the happy coincidences that mark our proceedings that he did so more or less coincidently with the arrival in the Chamber of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons. This is very fortunate because, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying, this afternoon he has been rather like the Duke of Plaza Toro leading his regiment from behind. Now that he is present I am sure he will be able to sort out our troubles. Does he wish to do so now?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of being discourteous in not being here. I was involved in another important Committee, as he knows. I was also due to be at another Committee, the Services Committee, which affects all Members of the House. But when news of the proceed-

ings here were conveyed to me I considered the situation and sought information and came down.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is always very courteous in his attendances upon the House. I was welcoming his arrival because I hoped at least that he might be more skilful than his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, or even his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in sorting out the tangles into which his colleagues have got the Committee. I very much hope that if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to listen to the proposal I am putting to him he may be successful in this, which would undoubtedly help the progress of the Bill.
As I believe neither you, Sir, nor the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will be aware, since neither of you were in the Committee at that time, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in what was, I am quite sure, an attempt to be helpful to the Committee said that he would be prepared to send a message to another place in respect of one of the documents we are discussing—the document under confidential cover in the Library—asking as I understand it to have the confidential limitation on it removed so that it could be disclosed to hon. Members. That was a helpful suggestion which carried with it the clear implication that in the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman himself it is relevant to a discussion of the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

Mr. Crossman: The suggestion carried the implication that if hon. Members felt there was a document relevant to this Bill in general which they thought should be made available, the contents of which I did not know, I saw no harm in seeking to make it available. It did not imply that it was relevant to this or any other Amendment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He will recall that it arose from a discussion of figures which he gave in our previous Sitting in a speech which at least purported to be relevant to this particular Amendment. It may well be that the Chairman nodded for a moment and let the right hon.


Gentleman go out of order. But unless the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he was out of order on the previous occasion, it is quite plain that this document in the context in which he mentioned it is a document which he accepts could be relevant to the discussion of the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does not my right hon. Friend think it possible that if the House of Lords, having placed a document in the Library of the House of Commons, seeks to impose upon the House of Commons an insistence that this document should remain confidential to us, that is the best reason in the world for reforming the House of Lords and getting on with the Bill?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a fascinating argument but I would hesitate to share my hon. Friend's confidence that the contents of a document which neither he nor I have seen could conceivably be relevant to sweeping constitutional reform. I lack my hon. Friend's courage. Perhaps a little I lack his confidence to proceed in the absence of evidence. We come to the fact that this document which we and the Government must accept is relevant to our proceedings on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in his helpful suggestion did not tell us how long it would take.
Most of us who are familiar with the proceedings that take place in this building know that they proceed as a kind of stately minuet. There is no undue expedition about them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman: how long will it be before the answer of another place will be available? Will it be available tonight? Will it be available tomorrow? It is really no good the right hon. Gentleman making this offer to the Committee unless he is prepared to tell us how soon he can produce results. Will it produce results tonight? If so, at what time? Will it produce results tomorrow? If so, will it be in time for our sitting tomorrow, because we cannot weigh the value of this contribution unless and until we know how soon it will produce results.

Sir C. Osborne: Surely the document would have to be printed as an official

paper so that every hon. Member of the Committee could have a copy. There could not be just one copy which we could take it in turns to read, for that would take forever. Could it be printed tonight so that we might study it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not as worried about that aspect as my hon. Friend for there are processes by which instantaneous photography can take place and if the Leader of the House seriously wants to get the document he can do so. But I want to know his intentions.

Mr. Roebuck: The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about having evidence and proceeding in the absence of evidence. What makes him so sure that this confidential document actually exists? Has he seen it or should we set up a Select Committee to investigate whether or not it exists? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) might have been given incorrect information.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have sufficient regard for that hon. Member whom I see in another capacity, to know that when he says he has seen a document it exists. This is almost the one certain point in an otherwise uncertain state of affairs. I accept that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has seen it but has been informed by the Office of the Library that it exists.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman has put forward a number of eventualities on the assumption that the noble Lords will allow the document to be published. What happens if they say they will not allow it to be published, as it stands at the moment?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I want to know when the request could operate. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who has made this offer to the Committee, I am sure quite seriously—and he must have some idea of the time scale involved—whether it will produce results tonight or tomorrow. There is the further point to which his hon. Friend has referred, whether there is any possibility that another place would refuse. Personally, I do not believe for a moment that it would, for the other place always acts with the greatest courtesy to this House, as this


House does to another place. But our position as to how we are going to vote on the Motion of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale must depend on what information we get from the Government as to how soon this information will be available. If it was going to be available by eight o'clock tonight we might feel that it was reasonable, despite the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, to continue with the debate on the Amendment. If it is not to be available tonight we might take another view.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why does my right hon. Friend suppose the document was made confidential in the first place? Surely, the reason for it being made confidential is that another place in its wisdom felt it was best that this House should not know. Why does my right hon. Friend suppose that at the request of the Leader of the House the arguments for confidentiality which were compelling in the past will cease to be compelling? Why should there be any change?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is a point, but I have always found two things in public administration—one, that people are far too keen to make confidential, or, indeed, secret, documents which could perfectly safely be dropped on the Kremlin, and, second, that another place is generally anxious to comply with the wishes of this House. I assume that if the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Committee, asked for information, it is extremely improbable that another place would refuse it. But I agree that this is theoretically possible, at any rate.
But what I must come back to is that our decision on what to do with this Motion is obviously closely related to how soon this information can be available. It would be outrageous to ask the Committee to proceed with the Amendment until this information, for better or worse, was available. As the lion. Member for Ebbw Vale rightly said, it is now the plain intention of the Government—whether it will be successful or not, I do not know—to avoid a Report stage. Consequently, when we part with this Amendment, we shall be parting with it, so far as this House is concerned, for good.
It would be quite wrong to ask the Committee to part with an Amendment finally and irrevocably in the absence of

information which everyone concerned accepts to be relevant. This would be an abuse of the Parliamentary process and it would clearly be even worse to do this in respect of a Constitutional Bill.

Sir D. Glover: Would it not be helpful if the Government gave an assurance that they would accept one of the Amendments which was originally theirs, so that there could be a Report stage, in which conditions we would perhaps be prepared to start discussing the Amendment?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That also is a most helpful suggestion and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has noted it. I know that my hon. Friend is trying to assist the progress of the Bill. That might be a way out, but, in the absence of one or the other of these expedients, the Committee is being asked to make a final decision on an important constitutional matter in the absence of information which is known and accepted to be relevant to its decision. That is not the right way to treat a Committee of the House of Commons.
There was a question also of another document, what the right hon. Gentleman called "our document". He told us that what he had in mind was his speech notes. It is curious that, if that was all that he had in mind, the right hon. Gentleman should have used the prefix "our". "My" notes, "my" document, might have been understandable, but not "our ". One knows that the right hon. Gentleman is very grand nowadays, but only monarchs or editors use "we"; ordinary citizens say "I". Unless he was in one of his grander moods, the use of the plural was a trifle curious.
"Our" document suggests in common parlance a Government document, "our" being the Government. Of course it is common sense and well known that complicated and difficult calculations are embodied in some form alike more formal and more permanent than even the speech notes of the right hon. Gentleman. Complicated calculations on which are based a vital provision of this Bill—the numbers, the attendances and the rest, of another place—are themselves based on something more substantial than that. It is not the way of Governments to make elaborate, difficult and complicated calculations on a spare piece of writing-paper.
There plainly is a document giving these figures in the Government's possession. I asked, as the then occupant of the Chair may recall, on a previous occasion when the learned Solicitor-General referred to this document, for it to be produced. I think that it was the general suggestion that the learned Solicitor-General's argument was so airy-fairy that it could hardly be based on any document and that was a tenable point of view. But when we come not to the Solicitor-General, of whose happy inconsequenciality the Committee is very fond, but to a senior member of the Cabinet, responsible for the Bill, we must assume, if only to show proper respect for the Government, that vital Government decisions are made on a statistical and factual basis embodied in something a little more permanent even than the speech notes of the Secretary of State.
Therefore, there are two documents which the Committee should see before being asked to come to a conclusion. It is fortunate that this Motion has been accepted: it gives the right hon. Gentleman a wonderful opportunity to come clean.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and this Motion. The Committee has got itself into a curious and difficult situation and we obviously need time away from this Chamber to reflect, first, upon the proceedings today and, second, upon the document when we get it.
There is also a very good reason for passing the Motion. On 26th February, when my right hon. Friend intervened or had been interrupted, he said:
… I will consider making them available "—
that is, the figures—
… although they are long and complicated.
Then there was a Division, and we came back with bated breath to hear those "long and complicated" figures.
When my right hon. Friend gave them to us, they amounted to this:
I thought it useful to tell the Committee what the calculation was. It was mostly concerned with the Session 1967–68. We observed that in that Session up to 1st August, 1968, 76 created peers and 85 peers by succession under 72 years of age attended over

50 per cent. of the sittings and 99 created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 attended over one-third of the sittings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1837, 1844.]
That was all. These were the "long and complicated figures". I remember sitting here wondering when the next lot of figures would be coming to us, but we did not get any more. I thought at the time, "This is very strange. I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend can talk about long and complicated figures and yet give us so few."

Mr. John Wells: Would the hon. Gentleman repeat his HANSARD reference?

Mr. Heffer: My quotations were from HANSARD of 26th February, c. 1837 and c. 1844.
Naturally, I had some conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is as interested in the Bill as I am. He told me that there were other figures available and that he had made some attempt to get them, but that he had been refused on the basis of confidentiality. He could have seen them himself but they were not available for the whole Committee. Obviously there were some other figures. My right hon. Friend said this afternoon he has not seen the figures; he does not know whether they are relevant or not because he has not seen them, but we do know of their existence. It becomes more mystifying as we go along. We are in a very strange and curious situation. We ought to report Progress so that we could go away, examine these documents and sets of figures, study them carefully and come back to the Committee, discussing the Amendments on the basis of the document and figures that are available.
This set of figures goes to the heart of of the Government's proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said he did not know how the Government arrived at their figures—whether it was the age of 72 or the other figures we have heard so often. Then it was whispered to me that perhaps the original figure was the payment of £2,000 and that everything revolved round that figure. That figure is eliminated altogether for the time being. We must have this set of figures. We must know what the Government's calculations were.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot really be suggesting that the proposals were based upon the figures, these "long and complicated" figures that he gave us, because if they were, what on earth are we talking about? They are what I would call "non-figures", because there is absolutely nothing in them at all. Surely there must be something else?
There is another reason why we ought to report Progress. The best reason is that we have spent two hours on points of order. I have been in the House of Commons since 1964, and I cannot remember an occasion when this has happened. We are not being frivolous. We are deeply concerned about the rights of back-benchers. If there is a document relevant to our discussions, it is obvious the Committee feels strongly about it and wants to see it in order to proceed on the basis of all the available information. The Committee can then seriously discuss this without coming to a hasty conclusion as far as the proposals are concerned. The mere fact that we have had two hours of points of order is a good enough indication that we ought to report Progress before going on to discuss any other Amendments before the Committee.
The series of Amendments before the Committee is decisive. We have had a series of important Amendments, but these Amendments in particular either make or break the Bill. On that basis, surely it is necessary for us to have all the relevant information before we vote on these Amendments or this Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is very wise in moving this Motion. I hope the Government accept it without any further discussion. I do not want to stop other hon. Members from speaking, but it would be a good gesture on the part of the Government to say "We think it is a very wise and sensible Motion, and on that basis we are prepared to accept the back-bench opinion in the Committee ". This is back-bench opinion; it is certainly not Front Bench opposite opinion because they have gone again.
I appeal to the Government to assist the Committee in bringing this discussion to a rapid conclusion by accepting the Motion.

Mr. Peyton: It is not every day of the week that I have the pleasure of supporting the statesmanlike attitude of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), nor do I always have the opportunity of going on to say how much I support and respect the patient pleading of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). On this occasion I should like to do both.
A stranger visiting the Committee this afternoon could be forgiven for wondering what on earth was happening in view of the total absence of any kind of friendly gesture towards the Bill itself. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale in the couretous and cordial welcome he paid to the Leader of the House. I now have the opportunity of repeating that welcome. We would never accuse the Leader of the House of discourtesy but sometimes of an excess of discretion, which he has shown this afternoon. It is not unimportant to ask where the Leader of the House has been. He may have been at a Select Committee. He threatened us with a visit to the Services Committee. It is not every Member of the House who is an enthusiastic, 100 per cent., sincere admirer of the Services Committee. He boasted he was going off to the Services Committee as though he were going to receive a vote of admiration on the spot. My attitude is one of admiration, definitely tinged by other feelings.
We admire the way the Leader of the House has kept away, not out of discourtesy but simply because he did not want to be too closely associated with this rather nasty thing.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to what appeared to me to be the enthusiastic assent of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to his proposition that the Leader of the House wanted to have nothing to do with this horrible Bill.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It might have been that if he had not said that I would have failed to notice the Pilate-like approach. Nobody would accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of wishing to be the pilot of this Bill.
7.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State was here for a brief spell while points of order were


being made, but everything became too much for him and he left, sadly and in unaccustomed silence. There followed a sadder intervention from the Under-Secretary, who I am sure has a long and distinguished Parliamentary career ahead of him but who has been saddled with this unfortunate Measure. It is a plain case of bullying by senior Ministers who, though not prepared to take the responsibility for this awful Bill themselves, are determined to push it through. We sympathise with the Under-Secretary in his unpleasant rôle in attempting to see this wretched Measure become law.
We were then privileged by the return of the Secretary of State, who got himself into a worse mess by referring to "the document". I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that there is no question of the right hon. Gentleman's deliberately misleading the Committee. He simply let the cat out of the bag in that delicate way of his. Enthusiasms sometimes run away with him.
One of our regrets today is the non-participation of the Law Officers of the Crown. They have not offered any help and your precursor in the Chair, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, had a difficult time, particularly since he was asked to accept a Motion to report Progress when no progress had either been made or was in prospect.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that although the Bill interferes with entrenched parts of the Act of Union, Scottish Law Officers have not been present?

Mr. Peyton: I am not particularly well versed in the esoteric subject of Scottish law, but I do not believe that they do any harm, even from Scotland's point of view, by not being present.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the Bill and who presented it, has not come to support the Bill today?

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend is unreasonable in assuming that I did not intend to refer to that right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is my hon. Friend certain that the Treaty of Arbroath has

not been withdrawn from the Library? Is he aware that that is confidential to their Lordships' House?

Mr. Peyton: That is a timely intervention, but I will leave the confidentiality of the Treaty of Arbroath to my right hon. Friend to deal with later.

Mr. Ridley: Would my hon. Friend care to press the Solicitor-General to explain how the other place can make documents in our Library confidential? Is this not a grave matter, legally if not from a privilege point of view?

Mr. Peyton: I have never seen any reason why any person should not make any document confidential. However, the document which interests me is the one which the Government plainly have in their custody, the information in which is vital to the Committee.
I return to my rôle of dishonour among Ministers, and I come to the Home Secretary. I have not until today taken an active part in discussing the Bill. I recall entering the Chamber one afternoon to hear the Home Secretary in a petulant mood unable to understand why the Committee would not let him have his way. He and his colleagues had made it clear that they intended to pass the Bill into law. They were surprised when hon. Members did not make obeisance and say, "We will make a nominal protest and then you may have your way."
Faced with this manifestation of opinion from both sides of the Committee, are the Government still prepared to force the Bill through? For two hours the Chair was faced with points of order, something I have never experienced. No voice expressed support for the Government, except when the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) emerged from another Committee and appeared to speak in support of getting on with the Bill. Whether or not that meant that he was in favour of the Measure, I was unable to detect.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend does the Home Secretary an injustice. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is as much against the Bill as he is. I recall that on one occasion the Home Secretary said that he was not prepared to defend the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman has not, by his arguments, his presence or his absence, attempted to defend it.

Mr. Peyton: I am immensely obliged to my hon. Friend for that piece of very valuable information. I had already deduced from the Home Secretary's facial expression that his enthusiasm was not running away with him. Nevertheless, we are deprived of his presence today and I am very sorry.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member should be fair. He should not single out the Home Secretary. Is it not true that none of the Ministers is enthusiastic about the Bill?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member is quite right. I was in danger of being very unfair indeed. In the earlier part of my speech I commented briefly and most moderately on the parts played by the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Solicitor-General. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) pulled in the Scottish Law Officers ever so gently. The only absent Minister I dealt with was the Home Secretary because he had been in charge of the Bill on the previous occasion when I was present.

Mr. Roebuck: In the hon. Member's unaccustomed mood of benevolence, will he refer individually to right hon. Members who sit on the Opposition Front Bench, or who sometimes sit on the opposition Front Bench, and let us know whether they are in favour of this Measure?

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged for that interesting observation. Modesty being one of my characteristics, psychoanalysis of Front Benches is not something in which I freely indulge. The only reason why I have been led to delve into the mental attitudes of occupants of the Government Front Bench on this occasion is that they are sponsors of the Bill.
What the attitude of those on my Front Bench is on this subject I know not—[An HON. MEMBER: "They know not."]—but no one would accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in so far as he has been present this afternoon, of showing excessive enthusiasm for the Bill. We all know him to be a man of lively enthusiasms who would readily espouse a good cause if he recognised it. I will not dwell upon the indecencies which are represented by

the Prime Minister's processes of thought, except to say that the particular dish represented by this Bill comes well from a man who boasts of his happiness in the kitchen. One can only imagine that it has been distilled among a long series of rather drab, squalid kitchen recollections. I hope that this will be the last such Measure for which the Prime Minister is responsible.
I hope that whoever is to reply to this very necessary debate will have the modesty to recognise that the House of Commons is totally against the Bill. I recognise that when the Division bells sound others will be called up and whipped through the Division Lobby to support a proposal which they have considered very little and of which they know practically nothing. I hope the Government will have the modesty and humility to admit what everyone else knows to be a fact—that they have made a mistake, misjudged the mood of the House of Commons and put forward some paltry, unnecessary and damaging proposals for reform of the House of Lords. In these uncomfortable days for them they would be better off with this load off their backs.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: I support the Motion. My interest in this matter started on an earlier Amendment when we were discussing the maximum age of retirement for voting peers. I intended to make one of my strongest arguments against the whole model of the construction of the House of Lords based as it is on a membership of 230 with a maximum age of 72, an attendance figure of one-third, with a £2,000 salary floating and being connected with all this.
Despite a great deal of preparation in which I was engaged, I was not fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chairman, so I was unable to make those points which will now have to wait until Third Reading, if they can be made then. I considered that a number of those points were related points and could be dealt with on the Amendment to fix the attendance at one-third. It was from that that I started very considerable investigations, which are still not complete and which obviously will be best fitted in with the


Amendment when we resume debate on it later.
One of the points I had to consider was whether there was any information which could guide me in deciding to my satisfaction whether the attendance figure of one-third was a good one or not. I obtained some information from the speech in the House of Lords by Lord Shackleton. He said on 21st November:
There has been some reference to the mathematical studies that were carried out.
He went on to show a connection between those studies and the voting age. Later he spoke of the attendance requirement and said:
May I also say something about the attendance requirement? It has been suggested that the attendance requirement of 33⅓ per cent. is either too high or too low, and, furthermore, that it would be wrong to pay Peers a considerable salary (I still do not know what it will be) for attending for such a short part of the time.
In a later passage he said:
…it will be necessary for voting Peers to put in a great deal more time than even many of the most regular attenders today are able to do. This must be inherent in what I may call the contract, the declaration of intention, of any Peer who undertakes these duties.
The 33⅓ per cent. requirement is in this scheme for one purpose only. It is to provide an automatic drop-out to the Peer who for some reason or other totally fails to turn up. We rejected the idea that the Prime Minister, or the Party managers, or anyone else, should be in a position to say to a Peer, 'You are not doing your job; you will lose your voting rights'. It might well be that a Peer who failed to perform his duties might be pressed by his colleagues to give away his voting rights and allow somebody else to take his place while he could carry on …"

The Chairman: Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. Sheldon: This is how I was led on to the action which followed. There are only another three lines, I thought it right for the convenience of the Committee to read this so that it should understand why my interest was directed in this way to the discussions we have had this afternoon. Lord Shackleton continued:
But we feel it necessary to establish some criterion in order to establish the viability of the two-tier system. If we do not have this, then I would say that there is no case

for a two-tier system at all. In that event it would be better to abandon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st November, 1968; Vol. 297, c. 1085–7.]
That was the starting point for my discussion of why it was necessary to go into this question of a one-third attendance figure which we must decide in subsequent Amendments.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to help me, but I still cannot see the connection between his remarks and the Motion.

Mr. Sheldon: I support the Motion, because I require that information so that I shall be able to present to the Committee in the discussions on the Amendment the central reason which I believe I can adduce for rejecting the figure of one-third.
When we last debated this matter I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make the figures which had been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, available to the Committee. At an earlier stage I had asked my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to make them available, but it was to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services that I made the strongest appeal, because of his expressed desire to make as much information available for public discussion as he could. I was more than delighted when my right hon. Friend accepted this plea and said that he would make the figures available, although I confess to being disappointed when I found that, instead of being given the very full figures which had been mentioned by the Leader of the House of Lords and which I knew existed, we were given a much shorter summary which was of little value to the detailed argument I wanted to pursue.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does my hon. Friend know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, quoted from "their" document or whether it was from "his" brief?

Mr. Sheldon: The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton will obviously have quoted from the conclusions. The work was in this document, as I understand it. There was this document to which I want to refer later, and the conclusions were what


were quoted by Lord Shackleton. Indeed, other conclusions were quoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Following the adjourned debate on 26th February, I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discover what further information was available. I asked my right hon. Friend if he would lay before the House the full calculations the Government had made in this connection. I went on to specify matters on which I wanted information. I received no such figures, only a general answer.
I then turned my attention to the Library, because I had asked the Library for certain statistics which I had been given in a general way. I realised that the Library could not have produced those statistics without having had a much greater background from which to obtain them. I therefore asked the Library for these figures. I received some correspondence. I quoted part of one letter earlier.
Therefore, I was in a great dilemma, because central to the argument whether the model chosen by my right hon. Friend is a correct one is the basis of past practices. To determine past practices, we needed an entire breakdown of the attendances of various peers, their ages, their party affiliations, their interests, and other factors—a much more comprehensive study. I believe that this study has been conducted by the Department concerned. I have severe criticisms to make as to the way in which the whole matter has been approached. I also realised that these figures which were being kept secret were not real secrets. They are obtainable, as I obtained them, from the Journals of the House of Lords. I have them all here. I could theoretically go through all of this and tabulate them in the required form. I thought of doing this as something which might be worth while. The matter is complicated because the names of the peers do not appear in alphabetical order in the Journals. I reckoned that, if I could get the assistance of a friend of mine in a business school and borrow a punched card system—

The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to speak more directly to the Motion which is before the Committee.

Mr. Sheldon: I mention this only to illustrate the importance of these figures, which need a great deal of consideration. A Member cannot be told, having been presented with these figures, "Carry on with the debate now that you have these figures ". It will be necessary to consider these figures for many hours, perhaps for days, before extracting a proper meaning from them.

The Chairman: Order. The Committee is seized of the importance of the figures. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself precisely enough to the Motion.

Mr. John Hall: On a point of order. On entering the Chamber comparatively recently I was puzzled by the fact that there is a Motion to report Progress before the Committee. I could not think what progress the Committee would be asked to report. Nevertheless, as I have listened to hon. Members from both sides it has become clear to me that the whole matter has arisen out of a failure to produce a document which is essential for the proper conduct of the affairs of the Committee. The more I listen to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—

The Chairman: Order. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is entering into the debate on the Motion and is not raising a point of order with the Chair.

Mr. John Hall: My point of order is this. I find it difficult precisely to follow the real reasons why we should report Progress without having a fairly detailed background of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If by your Ruling, Mr. Irving, you prevent the hon. Gentleman from filling in the background, it will make it difficult for hon. Members to be sure that the Motion is justified.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I hope that the lion. Gentleman will allow the Chair to decide matters of order. Mr. Sheldon.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Before my hon. Friend resumes his argument, may I ask him whether he supports the Motion because it will enable him to have time to go into all these matters that he intends to mention?

Mr. Sheldon: Precisely. I think that the information should be available to all Members. The information is so central to the argument that we must have it if we are to be able to test the model presented by my right hon. Friend against views which we might possess. I have attempted to do this in a number of ways—by getting management consultants to go into the matter on a different basis; by consulting a firm which has undertaken a survey of the attitude of the House of Lords. However, these matters, crucial though I believe them to be, are not as important as this question of the document, because this is the factual background of what has happened, and it is undisputed.
Although very good arguments can be adduced for doing things in a certain way in the future, and although important facts can be presented on which Members can make decisions, what has happened in the past is probably the most important factor. This is why I gave it so much attention when I sought to discover what attitude I should take and what view I should have on the important questions of attendance and age. Unfortunately, I was not able to discuss the question of age because I was unable to catch the eye of the Chair in that debate and was thus unable to deliver the considerable contribution that I had prepared.
The importance of the figures now under consideration lies mainly in the light which they will shed on the figures which we prepare for the House of Lords. As I say, they are not secret. It is all available in the Journals of the House of Lords, but, when I began to look into it, I thought that the task would take me about 40 hours, with the assistance of a colleague at a business school. I felt that it was wrong to ask anyone to do that sort of research.
It is said that there is no such thing as bad research, that any sort of research either produces results or shows those avenues where no useful results can be obtained, thus closing them to a subsequent investigator. But there is a bad kind of research, namely, that duplicating information which is already available though hidden. I felt that I should not devote 40 hours of my time to it, plus the time of someone in a business school, because the information was not being made available to the House as it should

have been. I refused to undertake the task, therefore, central though it is to the working of the Bill.
I came to the conclusion that the only course open to me was to make clear to this Committee the extreme importance of the matter, so that the documents—

7.30 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make clear to the Committee that he is addressing himself to the Motion before it. It is in some doubt at the moment. He is elaborating far too much.

Mr. Sheldon: I support the Motion to report Progress, Mr. Irving, because I consider that we should have opportunity to investigate all the matters about which I have been speaking. I have tried to show their extreme importance, as I see it, as an argument in support of the Motion. If I did not regard these matters as of such importance, the case for the Motion would be considerably diminished in my eyes. But so important and central do I believe them to be that I regard the case for the Motion as enormously strengthened.
The information is not secret, as I say, but it has been made secret. Those who made it secret know that there can be no possibility of an individual Member undertaking the task. I have done a great deal of work of one kind and another on the Bill, work which the Government should have done but did not do. But I did not feel able to do this piece of work, for it has been done already. That is what we should remember.
I do not believe that we need fear that the House of Lords would refuse to give us the information. I do not accept that there is a problem there. If we wish, we can direct the Library of the House of Commons to prepare these figures in any way we desire. It was not open to me as a private Member to give that instruction because it would have put far too great a burden upon the Library, but the House of Commons collectively could readily give it, and with their usual efficiency, the staff of the Library would carry it out with little delay.

Sir C. Osborne: Could the hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how long it would take the Library of the House to


do the research for us? How long would it take before we could have a debate with the information in our possession?

Mr. Sheldon: The time I gave was the time which it would take me, an untutored Member in these matters. With the facilities which the House of Commons could mobilise, it might be done in a day or two. I do not know. It would not take anything like so long as it would for someone like myself with limited resources.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In order to preserve good relations between the two Houses, could the Secretary of State do a deal by supplying the Lords with information about our attendances in return for theirs?

Mr. Sheldon: I should be happy to see our attendances revealed. I see no problem there. The real reason why there has been concealment of matters which are not really secret is, as we all know, to avoid giving offence to some peers, who come along, draw their 41/2 guineas, and are not seen all that frequently for the rest of the day. That is obvious to us all. In ordinary matters, we might be tender-hearted enough not to insist. I should not be prepared to do a great deal of investigation into the work or attendance of individual peers in the ordinary way, but when it is necessary to decide how a second House of Parliament should be constituted and organised, matters of tender concern should not seem to be more important than the provision of all the facts to the House of Commons. When we are considering the view one might take, on the one hand, on the importance of protecting certain individual peers or, on the other hand, the creation of a House of Parliament, we all know where our duty lies. It is wrong that a contrary view should even be expressed on a matter of such importance.
In time to come, the way in which the whole preparation for the Parliament (No. 2) Bill was done will become a case study for how these things ought not to be done. I have had and shall have a considerable amount to say on the way that work was done; it will make the Stansted affair seem rather less bad than it really was. There is the whole ques-

tion of the way in which the Civil Service operated, the way in which decisions were taken completely contrary, first, to the way in which the Fulton Committee said that they should be taken, and, second, contrary to the way in which they ought to have been taken in the light of the most elementary knowledge of such matters. The Fulton Report came out strongly against government by amateurs—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is diverging considerably from the Motion.

Mr. Sheldon: In a peroration, Mr. Irving, rather more latitude is frequently allowed, and I was tending to rely upon that. I was drawing my remarks to a conclusion in saying that the Fulton Committee came out strongly against administration by amateurs, the cult of the amateur. One could say that Fulton went too far, but the amateurs of which it spoke are experts compared with what we are speaking of here. There was no investigation of comparisons. One has only to read the speech of the Lord Chancellor to see that the international comparisons which ought to have been made were not even thought of. The whole background of investigation and survey, which I in a modest way have attempted to undertake and on which I hope to address the Committee on a subsequent occasion, was never tackled. It was not administration by amateurs. It was administration by dilettantes. That is what should be exposed and remedied.
I strongly support the Motion to report Progress, so that we may consider the whole matter once again.

Mr. Crossman: I thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this point and made one or two comments on the debate thus far. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), as he rightly reminded us, started off, about 10 days ago, the chain of incidents which has culminated in this Motion. I was grateful to him for telling us in such detail what it is that he needs, because he has made it easier for me to intervene and give our view. My hon. Friend's case is that we should report Progress because we need more information. There is always a temptation to say that; one


can always say that one wants more information before discussing an Amendment if one is not very anxious to get on very fast. It is a good argument, which I have often heard before. Nevertheless, it is important to consider whether the case has been made, and I shall do so.
It is important to realise that, as my hon. Friend says, the essential facts on which consideration not only of the Amendment but of all the Amendments to the Clause needs to be based are all public. The daily attendances are given in the Journal of the House of Lords and published each Session. The essential breakdown for the last complete Session is given on page 5 of the White Paper. So the facts are all available.
My hon. Friend felt very strongly that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if the facts were tabulated, and said that they should be tabulated in the way he found convenient. I understand this, but the Committee is deciding whether we must report Progress in the absence of information. I understand that my hon. Friend is not saying that no information has been published but that it has not been organised in the way that is most convenient to him. I do not believe that that is a sufficient reason for reporting Progress now.
In view of my hon. Friend's valuable speech assuring us of his knowledge that all the relevant information is already published, with all the relevant—[Interruption.]—I perhaps listened more carefully than hon. Members opposite. I heard him say clearly that all the records on which these calculations are based have been published.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. I consulted the Library and found that the document has 15 pages.

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening to my point, which is that the issue is whether essential information on which to base a judgment is not available to the Committee. It has been made clear by my hon. Friend that all the information has been made available, and therefore I oppose the Motion, and strongly advise others to do so.

Sir A. V. Harvey: If the information is public, as the right hon. Gentleman said, will he explain why the document which went to the Library was marked "confidential "?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me. I have said that if there is a document, as I am sure there is, I am prepared to see whether it can be passed from the Lords to the Commons. I have since learnt from my hon. Friend, and confirmed, that there is nothing in it which has not been published previously.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 166; Noes 85.

Division No. 121.]
AYES
[7.43 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Alldritt, Walter
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Archer, Peter
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ennals, David


Beaney, Alan
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bence, Cyril
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fernyhough, E.


Bishop, E. S.
Dalyell, Tam
Finch, Harold


Blackburn, F.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boy den, James
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bradley, Tom
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Forrester, John


Brooks, Edwin
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fowler, Gerry


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, lfor (Gower)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F' bury)
Dell, Edmund
Ginsburg, David


Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Carmichael, Neil
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Coe, Denis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)




Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu E. L. (Brigg)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hazell, Bert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddedsfield, E.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Henig, Stanley
Manuel, Archie
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hilton, W. S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rowlands, E.


Hobden, Dernnis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hoy, James
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius


Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Small, William


Hynd, John
Moonman, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Taverne, Dick


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thornton, Ernest


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Norwood, Christopher
Varley, Eric G.


Kenyon, Clifford
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lawson, George
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Weitzman, David


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lipton, Marcus
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Whitaker, Ben


Loughlin, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Luard, Evan
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Clifford (Aberttillery)


McCann, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Winnick, David


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Price, William (Rugby)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mackie, John
Probert, Arthur



Maclennan, Robert
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. loan L. Evans and


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Charles Grey.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Murton, Oscar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Astor, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Cower, Raymond
Orme, Stanley


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Barnes, Michael
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Peyton, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pounder, Rafton


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bidwell, Sydney
Hay, John
Pym, Francis


Bitten, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys, Williams, Sir Brandon


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heffer, Eric S.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Black, Sir Cyril
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Roebuck, Roy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
lremonger, T. L.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Smith, John (London & W' minster)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clark, Henry
Mag. nnis, John E.
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart


Costain, A. P.
Marquand, David
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crouch, David
Maude, Angus
Waddington, David


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Dean, Paul
Mawby, Ray
Younger, Hn. George


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)



Driberg, Tom
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eden, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Mr. Michael Foot and


Eyre, Reginald
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Mr. Robert Sheldon.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Morrison Charles (Devizes)

Question put accordingly, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 88, Noes 162

Division No. 122.]
AYES
[7.52 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Baker, W, H. K. (Banff)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Barnes, Michael
Bidwell, Sydney


Astor, John
Bell, Ronald
Biff en, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel




Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Body, Richard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Park, Trevor


Boyd-Carpenter, Fit. Hn. John
Hooson, Emlyn
Peyton, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buchanan-Smith, Alick ( Angus, N&M)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Roebuck, Roy


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crouch, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Silvester, Frederick


Dean, Paul
Lubbock, Eric
Smith, John (London & W' minster)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maginnis, John E.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Driberg, Tom
Marquand, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mendelson, J. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Cower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Michael Foot and


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Robert Sheldon.


Hay, John
Norwood, Christopher





NOES


Albu, Austen
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Archer, Peter
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bence, Cyril
Hannan, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland


Blackburn, F.
Haseldine, Norman
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James
Hazell, Bert
Orbach, Maurice


Bradley, Tom
Henig, Stanley
Oswald, Thomas


Brooks, Edwin
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Owens, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hilton, W. S.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hobden, Dennis
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hoy, James
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred




Pentland Norman


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hynd, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coe, Denis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Price, William (Rugby)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crostand, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson. Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rowlands, E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward ( N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Edmund
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Dunnett, Jack
Macdonald, A. H.
Thornton, Ernest


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
Mackie, John
Tuck, Raphael


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Ennals, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, Archie
Weitzman, David


Finch, Harold
Marks, Kenneth
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Whitaker, Ben


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Fowler, Gerry
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)




Williams, Alai Lee (Hornchurch)
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Clifford ford (Abertillery)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. loan L. Evans and


Willis, Rt. HM. George

Mr. Charles Grey.

The Chairman: The Question is—

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. I seek your guidance, Mr. Irving, and I believe that the Committee is in grave need of it, for we are now in much greater difficulty than would have been the case if the Patronage Secretary had not seen fit to close the debate on the last Motion as rapidly as he did. If the debate had been allowed to continue, we might have been able to elicit some of the answers which are still not forthcoming to the many points of order raised over a period of two hours when your predecessor was in the Chair. I still feel that the Committee is dissatisfied in that we are now to be called upon to debate an Amendment—

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that, for better or worse, we have disposed of the last Motion.

Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman was not really on a point of order. The hon. Member cannot speak further to it.

Mr. Roebuck: I rise to seek your guidance and ruling on a very important matter. As a most diligent attender at these Committee proceedings I am rather surprised to find that we have an irregular visitor, who comes along just when hon. Members are getting to the kernel of the very serious and important problems that we have to discuss, who listens to none of our deliberations, who stands up and mumbles something which most of the Committee cannot hear and then the Division bells go and we all have to troop into the Lobby—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is not addressing the Chair on a point of order.

Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not on a point of order. I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman was not addressing me on a point of order.

Mr. Roebuck: With the greatest possible respect, I had not finished. Is there no protection for back-benchers?

The Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point very quickly. He had not succeeded in doing so in his opening remarks.

Mr. Roebuck: I am greatly obliged. I entirely share the desire of the Chair for brevity. This is the point on which I wish to seek your guidance. It is generally understood in Committee, and throughout the country, that when the House of Commons is debating constitutional matters no Government ever closures those discussions. Yet constantly throughout this Committee our deliberations have been closured. I should be grateful if you could explain to us the point of principle involved here.

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. Nothing has happened so far that is out of order in relation to the Standing Orders of the House and this Committee.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order. Because of the shortness of the Minister's reply the Committee is still left in the dark as to what the Government propose to do—

The Chairman: Order, I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed to debate further a Motion that the Committee has just disposed of. I hope that he will not proceed any further with it.

Mr. Fraser: Our procedures have become slightly involved this afternoon, and there was a promise made by the Minister to lay a document. We wish to know when that promise will be fulfilled.

The Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Heffer: Further to this point of order—

The Chairman: Order. I have ruled that the right hon. Gentleman had not raised a point of order at all. Unless the hon. Gentleman has another point of order—

Mr. Heffer: Further to the point of order—

The Chairman: I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman has been ruled out of order in relation to the submission that he was making. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak further to something that has been disposed of by the Chair. If he has a new point of order I will gladly hear it, but I am afraid that he has not at the moment.

Mr. Heffer: I have not even had the chance to say anything.

The Chairman: Order. May I make clear the position of the Chair? The hon. Gentleman sought to speak further on a point of order which had been ruled out of order. Unless he raises a new point of order he cannot be heard.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. During the course of the discussion on the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), we were given the impression that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary would lay a document before the Committee. We were told also in reply that we would not get it at this stage and that was why my right hon. Friend was opposing that Motion. May I ask at what point we are to see this document—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to continue a debate which has been disposed of.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance on a point which I hope that you will let me put to you. Those of us who are not constitutional lawyers, just ordinary Members, find a lot of these rules difficult to follow. Having listened to the whole debate, it seemed to me that we could not go on with the next item before the Committee unless certain information was available. Can you tell the Committee how this information, that is so vital to the proper discharge of our duties, can be made available and how soon?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a submission which was the subject of the Motion that the Committee has just disposed of. I am afraid that I cannot allow it to be continued.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order. Could you help us in our difficulty? Some hon. Members were here for as long as two hours this afternoon without being able to raise a point of order, and for another two hours without being able to make a speech. I understand your difficulty in this matter. My point in mentioning the unexhausted points of order is that we have just been debating a Motion upon which you accepted the Closure. It would be quite wrong for me or anyone else to impugn that. I would ask you to accept a Motion which I seek to move, namely, to report Progress but not to ask leave to sit again. It was upon that addendum on the last Motion that most of the debate centred, and it caused a great deal of confusion when it came to voting.

The Chairman: Order. I cannot accept that submission.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. I should be very grateful for your guidance. The Committee is in very great difficulty. We spent two hours, uniquely in my experience, under the jurisdiction of your predecessor, Mr. Gourlay, listening to points of order. At the end of that, he, I think justifiably and rightly, and I say this with great respect, came to the conclusion that the only thing that he could do—belatedly—was to accept a Motion to report Progress. I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said about that part of the Motion "and ask leave to sit again"—as if anyone wished to do that ! The difficulty we all find ourselves in is that the information relevant to the discussion was not available—

The Chairman: Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is making a submission on two counts that have already been put to me and disposed of.

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order. I accept without question the Chair's decision about the recent Division. The Chair having accepted the Closure and the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, which has been defeated, the Committee is now coming on to the important Amendments to be moved by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and others. I


ask the guidance of the Chair. As we have been unable to get from the Government the document that would help our deliberations, will the Chair allow the back benchers the protection of the right to elicit from the Government by question and answer during the debate the information that we need if we are to form an objective decision on the matters which we are now about to debate?

The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, and the Chair will take all circumstances into account.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Irving, may I raise with you a point of order to which I hope you will give favourable consideration, since it will help the Committee and the Government? The Government have admitted that the information should be made available. As it is admitted that we cannot properly discuss these Amendments without this information—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman so far appears to me to be making a submission upon which I have already ruled. Unless he has a new point of order, I clearly ought not to entertain any further submission.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am coming to the point of order now, Sir. As it is within the power of the Chair to decide which Amendments should be called and when, would it be possible for you, Sir, not to call those Amendments which are immediately on the Order Paper and which are connected with this matter, but to postpone those until the Secretary of State for Social Services has made available this information?

The Chairman: We are on an Amendment at the moment. I cannot rule hypothetically for the future.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: On a point of order. I have observed in our Votes and Proceedings repeated reference to the House calling for certain documents to be laid on the table. I wonder, Sir, whether this procedure applies to a Committee and, if so, precisely how this should be done? I ask for your guidance, because on 26th February the Secretary of State—

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the Chair cannot help the hon. Gentleman. This matter has been gone into very thoroughly and I cannot help him further.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I wish, if I may, to put a different point of order. Even you, Sir, must realise, after the six or eight points of order that have been made—although you have not accepted them they were made sincerely—that everyone is in great difficulty except yourself and the Leader of the House. It is extremely difficult for us to continue our proceedings. I have been informed that the mysterious document which was supposed to be in the Library has now disappeared—

The Chairman: Order. That matter has been disposed of. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue any inquiries or make any representations, he may do so elsewhere, but I am afraid he cannot do it now.

Sir A. V. Harvey: With great respect, I agree. In the advice which you have given, you are adhering strictly to the rules, but the Committee is in a dilemma on how to approach the matter. Unless the document can be produced, the whole proceedings are a farce.

The Chairman: Order. That has been disposed of, and I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further.

Mr. Hastings: On another point of order. I hope it will be helpful for me to describe the dilemma in which the Committee is in this way. There exists, or there did exist, in the Library of the House of Commons a document of 15 pages, so we have now learnt, a compendium on which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) would have needed to work for 40 hours with the services of management consultants and a computer.

The Chairman: This matter has been gone into. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further. I cannot hear him fur-the; he is not making a new submission to me.

Mr. Hastings: I have not yet reached the kernel of my new point of order, which is that there exists in the Library of the House of Commons a document


which is apparently protected by a request from the other place that it should be treated as confidential. A number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House sought earlier from your predecessors in the Chair guidance as to how we in the House of Commons can secure access to documents in our own Library. This would seem to me to be still as relevant now to our discussions as it was when it was originally raised.

The Chairman: It is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter which the Committee has dealt with very fully for some long time now.

Mr. Roebuck: Will the Chair give the Committee some guidance about the length of time that will be available for us to discuss this important Amendment?

The Chairman: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman guidance hypothetically.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Can you, Mr. Irving, help us with the difficulty in which many hon. Members feel they are placed by advising us whether, within our rules of order, there are any other dilatory Motions which have not yet been moved and which you might feel disposed to accept?

The Chairman: I admire the hon. and learned Gentleman's ingenuity, but I am afraid that he is outside the rules of order.

The Question is, That the Amendment be made.

Sir D. Glover: We have had a long debate, trying to get information from the Government. Despite spending two hours on points of order and a Motion, we have so far completely failed to get that information. The Committee is completely unable to make up its mind whether to accept the Amendment or the proposal put forward in the Bill until that information is available. I do not know who will reply for the Government, but so that the Committee can collect together the information, and no doubt use it in the Division Lobbies, I now ask the right hon. Gentleman about the voting records of the individual Members of another place.
I refer first to Aberconway, the third baron. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell

the Committee whether this noble Lord has appeared in the other place for 33⅓ per cent., 25 per cent., 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the time?
Will the Government inform the Committee whether the Duke of Abercorn has appeared in the other place to carry out his duties for 25 per cent., 33⅓ per cent., 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of the time? How can we form a judgment unless these figures are available?
Then I see that the noble baron the Lord Abordare is also a Member of another place. Has the noble baron—

The Chairman: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he intends to proceed through the whole of the Parliamentary Companion, he will be getting beyond the rules of order.

Sir D. Glover: With the greatest respect, we have asked the Government to allow the Committee to adjourn so that this information can be made available. The Government have refused to give us this information. Although it may be somewhat tedious for the Committee, the only way in which this information can be obtained is by Members of the Committee asking about the individual voting records. This is the basis of the Amendment which we are now discussing, whether the really valuable Members of the House of Lords attend 25 per cent., 33⅓ per cent. or 50 per cent. of the time. If we agree with the Government's proposal of 33⅓ per cent. of the time, shall we discover that in the process of doing so we shall deprive the other place of the most influential, the most informed and the most erudite Members of the other place because we have fixed the figure too high?
Mr. Irving, I do this with a great deal of hesitation because I do not want to run through the Parliamentary Companion. That would be a very laborious job, but the Government are forcing me to take this action because, otherwise, how do I make up my mind when we come to divide on the matter? The Government have the information. They could have given it to the Committee. Each member of the Committee could have made an objective assessment. However, we have not got the information and, although it may appear to be slightly tedious, the only possible way of dealing with the matter is by asking the


Government, who have the knowledge, to give the Committee the record of each individual Member of the other place. It seems to me that the only way that I can do that is by asking for that information individually, naming each Member of the other place.

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman would be out of order in doing that.

Sir D. Glover: Then, if I may intervene in my own speech, on a point of order. I should like the protection of the Chair. We have spent four and half hours trying to get this information. There is still a great deal of anger in the Committee that the Government moved the Closure. After four and half hours of battling against the Executive trying to get this information, we still have not got it.

The Chairman: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma, but this is not a matter for the Chair, and I have ruled that the hon. Gentleman will be going out of order if he embarks upon this elaboration.

Sir D. Glover: Then, Mr. Irving, perhaps I may have your advice. May I choose a hundred names in order to get a cross-section? I know that this is tedious, but would it be helpful to the Committee if I were to pick out a hundred names? I am prepared to take the first two names at the beginning of each letter of the alphabet, for example, in order to get some concrete information on which to reach a conclusion.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is seeking information and attempting to press an argument on the Government. If he were to repeat this, he would be repeating the argument over and over again in a degree of elaboration which would make him out of order. I understand his dilemma, but the Chair would have to rule him out of order.

Sir D. Glover: Mr. Irving, I am sorry to press this, but it is a very important matter. The Committee is being asked to decide whether it accepts the Government's recommendation that one third of the possible attendances should be the right basis, for selecting voting peers in the other place. At the present moment,

we have no knowledge, because we do not know the names or the performances.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really is debating the decision of the Chair, and I cannot allow him to do that. To submit a series of names would be to submit the same argument over and over again. Under Standing Orders, repetition of this kind is out of order.

Sir D. Glover: With respect, Mr. Irving, I do not see how I can repeat myself since every name in the Peerage, apparently, is different.

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. I said that the argument would be the same even though the names were different.

Sir D. Glover: But the argument is not the same. The argument is a continuing process. If I might put a hypothetical case to the Chair, supposing—

The Chairman: Order. I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman, but I could not rule on a hypothetical case, anyway. I have sought to rule on his submissions so far, and I am afraid that he will have to accept those Rulings.

Sir D. Glover: Mr. Irving, I am not trying to be awkward. I really want this information before I come to a conclusion.
Supposing the Committee knew that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, would be deprived of his attendance as a voting peer in the other place because he had only managed to clock up 25 per cent. of attendances in the relevant period. I am sure that a great many hon. Members would be governed in that case in trying to support the Amendment to reduce it to 25 per cent.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in asking for the records of all members of the other place. I am suggesting that he would be out of order if he went on to ask for them all by name, individually.

Sir D. Glover: I accept that, Mr. Irving. As I said at the beginning, I do not wish to do this, but the difficulty which the Committee have got into is a very real one, and it has got into it as a result of the Government's mismanagement of our affairs.
It is fair to assume that, at some stage of the proceedings, we shall finish with Clause 4. If we finish it without the information that we need—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing arguments to the Chair which ought to be addressed to the Government. I understand his difficulty, but I cannot help him. I must operate the rules of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now speak to the Amendment, and not raise further points of order.

Sir D. Glover: I am in considerable difficulty in doing that because, while I support the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), largely through the discussions on this Bill, we are not only debating his Amendment but Amendment No. 28, which is to leave out "one third" and insert "two thirds", Amendment No. 119, which is to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-half", Amendment No. 148, which is to leave out "one-third" and insert "one-fifth" and Amendment No. 122, which provides for another composition of the other place. I do not see how this Committee can reach a decision unless the Government give us categorical information on the matter which, so far, they have flatly refused to do.
I will not pursue the list in Dod's Parliamentary Companion. If I did that, I would be out of favour with the Chair. However, I want information to allow me to decide for which of the five Amendments I should plump.
We back bench hon. Members now need the protection of the Chair. As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) said, it may be that an hon. Member will move the Closure on Amendment No. 120, which was moved so ably by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. We may have a debate, the Chair will accept the Closure, and we shall then take a vote.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I am sure that he would not wish to mislead anybody about the situation. My hon. Friend gave way at one point so that the Secretary of State for Social

Services could make a statement. When my hon. Friend gave way it was quite clear that he would be seeking to address the Committee at a later stage because he had not then given the Committee anything like the information which he indicated he had in his possession at that time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the rest of the Committee about that.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for that intervention. When I rose after the points of order and you, Mr. Irving, called me, I was a little astonished, because I thought that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) still had the Floor—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did not have the Floor. But hon. Members could help him to make another speech perhaps by proceeding as quickly as possible with their speeches.

Sir D. Glover: As the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has done so much research, I was hoping he would have made another contribution. His contributions to the Committee have been very weighty, and I was looking forward to his elucidation of this problem, with which we are now dealing in a complete vacuum because we have no knowledge, no information—information having been refused by the Government.
The Solicitor-General is sitting on the Government Front Bench. I am prepared to give way to him. Before we reach a conclusion on this group of Amendments, will he disclose to the Committee—not the position of the 1,000 Members of the House of Lords, because I understand there are only about 450 regular or semi-regular attenders—how many out of the 450 have attended 25 per cent. of the time, how many have attended 33⅓ per cent. of the time, how many have attended 50 per cent. of the time, how many have attended above that figure, how many have attended below that figure, and how many have attended 10 per cent. of the time, so that we can form a judgment?
Will the Solicitor-General also, from his researches, tell the Committee who of the outstanding statesmen of the last


decade who are now Members of the other place would be deprived of their position of authority in the other place if we fixed the percentage too high? Or will he be able to show the Committee, so that we can form a proper judgment, that, because the great national figures in all parties who are now members of the other place are the best attenders, even if we fixed the figure at 75 per cent. of attendance we should not deprive it of the quality about which we who oppose the Bill are so worried in forming our conclusions?

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair.]

The Committee has not only a right but a duty to demand this information from the Government before we try to reach a conclusion on the matters we are now debating. I have offered to give way twice to the Solicitor-General, because I think that the Committee has a right to know whether he is proposing at some stage in the debate to give the information for which I am asking and which every member of the Committee is demanding that the Government should give to enable us to form a conclusion. I will willingly give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he be giving us this information? If he does not give us this information, then it appears to me—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps it might short circuit the position, as the hon. Gentleman is not getting any response from the Government Front Bench, if he would ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) whether, because of this secret agreement between the two Front Benches, he has this information and is willing to give it to the hon. Gentleman. Knowing how generous the hon. Gentleman is, he might then circulate it to the members of the Committee. I have a feeling that the Opposition Front Bench is also privy to the secret.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interjection. I have no doubt that there is some unholy alliance in this business. I do not know which right hon. Member disappeared from the Chamber and went to the Library, but it is worrying that this important document should have disappeared.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I can reassure my hon. Friend that there are

no printed documents in the place that I visited.

Sir D. Glover: I am sure that members of the Committee on both sides warmly welcome the statement just made by my right hon. Friend. We are encouraged in continuing our deliberations in the knowledge that he was not party to some nefarious plot to make this important document disappear as soon as it was realised that it might be of value to the Committee. I presume that this document, although it may have temporarily disappeared, will be produced by the other place at some stage in the future.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewisrose—

Sir D. Glover: I shall not give way for a moment. In due course I shall give the hon. Gentleman plenty of time.
I think one can say that this document will appear after we have reached a conclusion in the Committee, and either won or lost as the case may be, but having done it with inadequate information.
I come now to a matter of great substance—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me a little about the problem of the document to which he is referring. Would I be correct in understanding that the object of the hon. Gentleman's desire to have a sight of this document is that he feels that if a document setting out records were available to the Committee we should be better able to judge whether the figures set out in the Clause to which he is suggesting an Amendment are correct, or whether the Amendment is correct? Is that the reason behind the hon. Gentleman's request for this document?

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I apologise for not making myself clear. That is the nub of my argument. Are the Government, or—and I give this to hon. Gentlemen opposite—the joint board, right in the assumption of 33⅓0 per cent.? Is that the right assumption, or is some other percentage or some other arrangement wiser and better in building up the new—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I have spent most of the afternoon in this Committee, in common with most hon. Members, and I have


listened to the general debate on points of order. The hon. Member is now debating whether he could be guided by 33½ per cent. 25 per cent., 10 per cent., or by some other percentage of attendance. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, whether hon. Members have knowledge of the paper or not, the Amendments have been tabled and there must have been some good valid reasons which led hon. Members to suggest these percentages.

Sir D. Glover: With all humility, Sir Myer, I suggest that this is how a Committee works. Very often an Amendment, which is known as a probing Amendment, is put down with the object of getting information. This happens throughout our Parliamentary proceedings. The trouble here is that we have not found out anything and this is the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself. I admit that I was perhaps led a wee bit astray by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), because I was coming on to what I think is an extremely important matter on which I think those who support the Bill should go into the Lobby with those who oppose it.
Although we are debating these Amendments without the necessary knowledge to form a correct conclusion, and although the Government have said that they will try to obtain this document so that hon. Members on both sides can study it at some future date, because the Government seem determined that there shall be no Report stage of the Bill, even if, having got this information from this document, the Committee by an overwhelming majority wished to alter the basis of attendance in the other place we should have no further opportunity of altering the Bill. It would be scandalous for us to pass Clause 4, which deals with the attendance picture in the House of Lords, without a firm assurance from the Government that the Amendments which they originally tabled will be accepted by them so that the Committee knows, when it is dealing with this problem, that there will be a Report stage. Having got this further information that we are all seeking, we should be able to make a much more responsible, much more objective, much more deep-seated, and much wiser decision. I believe that that should be the reaction of everybody who

is a member of this Committee, whatever his attitude to the Bill.
The Government are making protestations that they wish to help the Committee, that they wish the Committee to have this evidence which they admit exists. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Social Security was speaking from his notes. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made quite clear, this is not how Government Bills are produced. Of course there are documents with this information available and the Committee has a right—indeed, it goes further—we have a constitutional duty to fight this Clause word by word and hour by hour until we get from the Government some indication that we are not going to make an irrevocable decision on the question of attendance and so on in the House of Lords; because the Government have given us a promise that, whatever decision we make during the Committee stage, they will ensure that there is a Report stage of this Bill so that Parliament can take a second decision if the information then available makes this desirable.
It is for this reason that today has been in many ways a great historic day from the constitutional point of view. Many hon. Members in the House today who perhaps at this moment may have thought they have taken part in some form of filibuster have probably done an enormous constitutional job in trying to force the Government of the day—and I do not mind which Government it is—to give the House of Commons the information it needs on which to form a conclusion and a view. I believe we have nothing for which we need apologise, and if this debate on Clause 4 goes on all night, then again I do not believe the Committee will have anything at all for which to apologise.
We are not Lobby fodder. We are people elected by our constituents to form a view, and we cannot form a view unless the Government of the day give us the information on which to form that view. The Government have that information and they refuse to disclose it to us at a time when it is useful in debating these Amendments. Therefore, I am sure the Committee will be right to go on arguing this until the Government are much more forthcoming than


they have shown any sign of being during the last six hours of our debate.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Sheldon: You will, of course, be aware, Sir Myer, of the very strong feeling in the House and in this Committee that we are discussing a matter the central part of which has not been before us. Nevertheless, I carried on with a fair amount of my own personal, detailed research while I tried to remedy some of the deficiencies in the information that was before this Committee. I need hardly say how very much I deplore having to speak once again on this Amendment without the information which I understood would be given to me when I came to go into the arguments which I had at that stage only just begun. I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that my speech up to that stage occupied just one column. At that stage I had been so strongly opposed to the secrecy surrounding these documents that the Secretary of State said that he would make them available although they are long and complicated. It was at that stage, after thanking him very strongly and expressing my very deep gratitude to him for his information which would make so much better the contribution many hon. Members would be able to make, that I resumed my seat.
When subsequently the information was not produced to the House I, like most hon. Members, was deeply upset and acquired the feeling that we had been fooled. I must say that today, after the constant changing of mind that we have seen, this dithering as to whether this document is to be put before us or not, I am not convinced that we shall get the information. In view of my right hon. Friend's last remarks. I am not sure that we shall get either the document that is in the Library of the House or any other document from which my right hon. Friend quoted. I am not even certain that, at this moment, that document is still in the House of Commons. We have our rights in dealing with our own Library, but if it has gone from there, those rights may not exist. So the Government should be open and let us know about this document, which is central to the Amendment.
You said, Sir Myer, that hon. Members had formed their own conclusions

when putting down Amendments, but they were only interim conclusions. When I put down my three Amendments, I did so on the basis of the information then available: I had no other. It was only as our debates progressed that I became aware of further information and the realisation of projects which I had initiated enabled me to assess more precisely the changes that I might favour. This is not unknown in Committee. Hon. Members must put an Amendment down very early to have it selected and they hope that any final adjustments which are necessary will be made on Report.
This was the basis of my Amendments, but I realised that, in the light of subsequent research, some modification of the figures might be necessary. We should be very obstinate if we put down figures and stood by them when subsequent research did not uphold them. We must always make the best estimate that we can, and should expect to modify our attitude in the light of the facts which become available. Many hon. Members might want to do this.
But our difficulty here is that that information, which should have been available and analysed in great depth by this time to enable us to criticise the model of a second Chamber and the attendance figures, is not available. I argued that this was only one model of many possible ones. One had a system whereby the selection was of the attendance of one-third, the age limit at 72, the size of the Chamber at 230 and the salary at £2,000. I suggested one could have an entirely different model whereby the attendance was greater, but in order to obtain a higher attendance one would need to pay people more; on the other hand, because there was a high attendance the Chamber size could be reduced. One had a whole range of models. One could have for example—and this is only one of the very many models that one could select—an attendance of two-thirds, an age limit of 65, a Chamber size of 150 and a salary of £3,000. I should not like to defend that proposition because there could be information available to us against which it could be tested and found to be wrong. The point is that the Government's model ought to be tested and might also be found to be wrong. It has not been submitted to the test.
I can stand up and strongly claim my model as being superior to that of the Government, and the Government can stand up and claim that their model is superior to mine. This Committee will not be in a position to know which one is right. We should be arguing on the basis of irrelevancies as to whether 72 or 65 is the right age without knowing the facts which are determined and which are held by the Government but which have not been revealed to this Committee. This is the disgraceful part of the entire episode. On that basis the Government are determined to railroad this Bill through with no changes whatever and no justification.
One might assume that the Government had acquired an absolute perfection—although absolute perfection, in my recollection, is usually claimed only by those people who are wholly in the wrong. It might be that they are able to claim this absolute perfection because it is true. If this is so it should be a very easy matter to lay those facts before this Committee on which we can decide for ourselves and fully accept that the Government have made the right decision. At this stage I can put forward a model that is more or less picked out of the air—attendance of two-thirds, 65 the age of retirement, a Chamber of 150, giving smaller accommodation, £3,000 a year—which works out cheaper, and claim for this model greater benefit than the model that the Government have selected. They are not in a position to deny that mine is better than theirs unless they start quoting selectively from a document that has not been laid before the Committee.
This is the present situation. That that is extremely unsatisfactory has been stated again and again. It needs to be stated. It is quite scandalous that we should decide in this Amendment the shape of the House of Lords without the information that the Government are keeping from us.
I considered at one stage trying to find out what information the Government had. There are certain kinds of information—and here I would contradict the Secretary of State when he said "It is all published "—and records that are not published and that may exist. I do

not know whether this is true or not. Looking through the journals of the House of Lords, one sees there the attendance of peers. They must sign in and therefore one can get a good idea of the figures involved.
I took a 20 per cent. sample and discovered that the average figure for attendance was 210, although the voting figures were very much down on that. I did not have at my disposal the resources of the Government and was not able to make a full evaluation. It seemed from my sample that the voting figures were much smaller than the attendance figures, and there may here be a skeleton in the cupboard that gives one the impression that there is another piece of information which has not been revealed to the Committee.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Based on that exercise, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the clocking-out figures are more important than the clocking-in ones in that, while they get their money by clocking-in, they cast their votes by clocking-out?

Mr. Sheldon: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that interesting observation. I have made further calculations—one can gather the attitude of the House of Lords towards this matter from another survey that has been made—and I will come to them later.
Although the average back-bencher does not have the resources of the Government available to him to conduct surveys of this kind, we have been forced, because of the Government's refusal to reveal vital information, to do our best in this connection. I examined the possibility of analysing a reformed House of Lords and I concluded that the best analysis that I could make was to study the relevant factors in reforming the other place.
The figures which I put before hon. Members in considering such a reform—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to be cooperative and to expedite our business. If he intends to give an indication of the kind of House of Lords that he would contemplate, I must remind him that the Amendment merely


seeks to amend the minimum attendance in "a" House of Lords. I should, therefore, have to rule out of order any attempt to describe the type of Upper Chamber that he would like to see.

Mr. Sheldon: I appreciate your Ruling Sir Meyer, but in dealing with the question of attendances I must naturally refer to the figures of attendance, age, size of chamber and salary because these are all inter-related. If I were to say that there should be an attendance of two-thirds, I should have to make a change somewhere else. My remarks are obviously directed to the question of minimum attendance, but one must consider the consequential changes that this involves.
I began my investigation by feeling that it must be a fact-finding operation. Since SC' many statistics have been concealed from us, a survey of this kind is vital. I made some sample tabulations of attendance, but was never confident enough to believe that they could be used as a basis for making a firm asssessment. Being such a complicated matter, I felt that such a wide-ranging examination was beyond the resources of the average back-bencher.
9.0 p.m.
I got co-operation from somebody in a business school who offered me certain facilities. I felt that I could engage him sufficiently to offer certain facilities, including the use of punch cards, but I felt that it would be unfair to impose this burden when the facilities should have been available to the Committee from the Government. There was the question of information which one could gather. I found that there was information of other kinds available, and this I made use of from time to time.
The next thing was a survey of attitudes of Members of the House of Lords. When one makes a decision based purely on fact finding without attempting to make a survey, one has to deny oneself one of the fundamental aids of modern management. The Government make an assumption that 230 peers with a maximum age of 72 and a salary of £2,000 would mean that they would attend two-thirds of the time. What would happen if they attended for only 50 per cent. of the time, or if there were a larger Chamber? Six men sitting round a table

cannot decide these matters perfectly. What any ordinary management exercise would consist of is a certain survey to find just what peers think about it themselves and to find how many want to be peers.
Do the Government know? Have the Government any indication of how many of the thousand or more peers would like to be voting peers? Is this not of crucial importance? Does it not have a bearing on attendance and a bearing on the size of the House of Lords? They did not do this. We are not talking about advanced managerial expertise, but about something which a simpleton in any firm concerned with these matters should be able to take on. These are matters on which, with the limited resources I have available, I was able to persuade a firm of research services, Mark Abrams, to undertake a survey of attitudes, the results of which I have with me.
The next thing which I felt was fairly obvious that I should do and which is not a matter of advanced techniques but is again simple, was to make a comparative study. What about Houses of Lords elsewhere? How are they run? What are their attendances like? What tasks do they have to perform? How well do they perform and how do they vary from one part of a country to another? This has not been done. It is a crying disgrace that when we are to create a House of Parliament which is to determine how this country should be run we fail to do some of the most obvious things which could have been done. It is a scandal. It should be known how far short of what they could have done they have in fact done. On the question of international comparisons we find a deplorable lack of understanding of what goes on in other countries.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak): Does my hon. Friend agree that had this research been undertaken it might well have led the Government to the conclusion that a bicameral system is not an effective system? Is this a conclusion which might have been anticipated and have led to the decision not to undertake this research?

Mr. Sheldon: I should not like to comment on that matter.

The Temporary Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for not offering to comment on that matter.

Mr. Sheldon: Suffice it to say that there was an appalling lack of knowledge of international comparisons. The speech of the Lord Chancellor on 19th November, 1968, contained this profound statement:
…I think the unicameralism position is contradicted by all experience. There is no other Western democracy of anything like our size that has not found from experience that it is absolutely essential to have a Second Chamber. There are, of course, smaller ones which have one Chamber: New Zealand, Israel, Zambia, I believe Liechtenstein, and no doubt some others. General experience has been that it is necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 19th November, 1968, Vol. 297, c. 642.]
That was the investigation of international comparisons conducted by the Government. There should have been a full book. We are not talking about a minor Bill to improve the sewerage in one part of the country. We are talking about a House of Lords which is to play a crucial part in the government of Britain. To conduct the investigation on this third-form basis is a standing disgrace to the House of Lords. Had the Government conducted this investigation properly, they would have shown that most of the countries which have two chambers have copied our system—both the revolutionaries who admired us in the 18th century and the reactionaries who admired us subsequently because we had withstood Napoleon. If the Government had been looking in that direction and had followed through the fact that, had we been unicameralists, most countries would have been unicameralists, that had we been tricameralists a large number of countries would have been tricameralists, and then investigated—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We must draw the line somewhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman within his own heart knows full well that he has transcended the generous bounds of the Amendment. I ask him to return to the terms of the Amendment dealing with the question of the minimum attendance requirement.

Mr. Sheldon: I am in some difficulty, as I am sure you appreciate, Sir Myer.

The Temporary Chairman: Then the obvious solution is for the hon. Gentleman to throw the argument overboard.

Mr. Sheldon: Only because one searches hard for a place to look at the technical aspects of some of these matters relating to size, composition and attendance—

The Temporary Chairman: This is not the place to debate them. That is my ruling.

Mr. Sheldon: I am trying to debate the attendance figures in so far as they relate to other countries and point out that in those other countries there are lessons to be learned which were available within the constraints of time, within the constraints upon availability, within the constraints of numbers of staff that could be deputed to this task. All this was available, but it was not gathered.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Have the Governments of other countries which have two chambers shown the same unaccountable reluctance as this Government to release attendance figures?

Mr. Sheldon: I do not know. For a brief time I considered what I personally should do in the way of obtaining international comparisons of sizes of chambers, attendance, and so on. I soon realised that I did not have sufficient time available to me to enable me to undertake such a task. As a result, I did not proceed further.
That left me with the approach which I intended to adopt in the time between the interruption of the debate and its resumption today in devoting myself to considering how the figures might have been determined with much greater precision. I thought that I had better secure some outside advice on how it should best be done. As the Committee knows, I was a member of the Fulton Committee which examined the Civil Service and its approach to matters of this kind. I asked the management consultant who was responsible for the exercise covered in the Fulton Report which examined the Civil Service if he would give his view on the approach which should be made in attempting to obtain the right model of the House of Lords and how it should be constituted.
I have his report here, and he has given me permission to quote from it and give his name. He is an eminent and able management consultant, Mr. John Garrett. I shall not quote all he says, but he makes some important points on how the Government could have put before us a rather better figure than the arbitrary one-third which seems to have been decided by half-a-dozen men asking one another's views. Mr. Garrett deals first with the way in which the task is commenced, the technical problems, the method of setting up the study, the terms of reference, allocation of responsibilities, how one secures accountable management in establishing responsibility for various parts of the study, and so on. He then comes to the fact gathering, the part which has been denied to us.
First, he draws attention to the importance of statements of Government policy view, and one should include here, I suppose, the policy view of the Opposition. Then he covers an examination of the existing membership of the other place, how many attendances Members put in, and so on. All that should have been done. We know that part at least was done. Then he suggests an attitude survey of the Lords, I was pleased at that because I had already undertaken it. An attitude survey is valuable in determining what is acceptable. It is an important tool of Government, a tool which is not used anything like enough. At present, the way in which we go about such matters is to ask a few spokesmen who claim to represent an industry or an interest, though we know in our heart of hearts that they have no right to make that claim. One can find these matters out. The methods I am outlining are not perfect. They just happen to be better than those used by the Government, although they, equally, are available to the Government.
One should then take into account the attitudes of other interested persons and bodies. Perhaps the attitudes of Members of Parliament might have been studied; the Government would at least have been a little more knowledgeable on that aspect of the matter.
Next, Mr. Garrett points out the need for comparative studies, such as the one which I had hoped to set going and

could not, to see what goes on in foreign countries and institutions. After all the great fact gathering, one next assembles the published data and synthesises it, testing it again with some more surveys. His estimate was that the whole operation would take about three to six months. That is about fair. It gives plenty of time for an exhaustive analysis of one of the most important matters to come before the House of Commons, and it could and should have been done. The Government, who so heartily welcomed the Fulton approach, failed to recognise that here, right in our very midst, was an application that should have been made but was not.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I disagree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that an attitudinal survey of the type he mentioned could be undertaken within three to six months. Going by my knowledge of such surveys, I believe that it would be a rather slight survey if it took such a short time. I believe it would have to take much longer.
I also want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the very interesting conclusions reported in the recent study by Professor Mackenzie and Dr. Silver of the London School of Economics in their book on the Conservative working-class voter, "Angels in Marble ". We know that there are many such voters. The study, which also considered Labour working class voters, reveals quite clearly that the majority of working class voters are—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that he is well outside the bounds of order. We are not concerned at this stage with the views expressed by other people. I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Amendment, and to remember that he is intervening in a speech by the non. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).

Mr. Jackson: I was drawing my hon. Friend's attention to research done in the field, Sir Myer. You allowed my hon. Friend to make the point that there should have been research into the attitude of the public, Members of Parliament and others on reform of the House of Lords. I am merely drawing his


attention to some research that has probably escaped his notice. I should like to end by drawing his attention to the conclusion in the book that the majority of Labour voters are opposed to the type of reform contained in the Bill, and are in favour of abolition.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for that intervention.
I should add that Mr. Garrett prepared the report in a great hurry. I rather pressed him. In his covering letter he states:
This "—
the study—
would be an ideal project for a post-Fulton planning unit, and would take three to six months, I would think, excluding systems design.
That would add a few months to the figure I quoted. This is something the Government should have undertaken if they really wanted their proposals to be taken seriously.
The survey which I organised with Research Services Limited, using a random sample of Members of the House of Lords, was organised to have the details returned by Tuesday of last week. The most important point I had in mind was the level of attendance, because it came about during the interruption of the debate on the subject. But I naturally took the opportunity of putting a whole range of questions, which were prepared in conjunction with the firm. It was a sample survey of over 300, and we had more than 100 replies, which I and the firm consider to be a very reasonable response, from which one can draw conclusions of some value and close relevance to the decision as to the kind of House of Lords—

The Solicitor-General: Will my hon. Friend indicate how he arrived at the figure of 300?

Mr. Sheldon: This was a sample survey, and the results would have been the same, within broad statistical error, had it been 200 or 400. The House of Lords will not be the same body, on the other hand, if it is 150 as it will be if it is 300. There are occasions when figures are crucial and occasions when they are less important. We should really understand when the first is the case and when the

second is the case. We might then be able to come to rather better decisions than the guesswork which is so frequently involved, according to my inference from that intervention. There are much better ways of making decisions of crucial importance than by guesswork.
The survey asked a number of questions. First, it asked whether the peer was a peer of succession, a life peer or a peer of first creation. It asked for details of age; they were broken down into five age brackets. It asked for attendances. In doing this, we realised that it would not be possible to expect Members of the House of Lords to draw upon their diaries; so we asked for approximate attendances, realising, of course, that obviously there would be a bias in favour of over-estimation. We hoped we might be able to allow for that subsequently.
The survey asked for percentages of days on which the Member attended, the days when he obtained leave of absence and the days on which he did not attend. It also asked—and this is relevant to the following Amendment—what days lie would have attended had he not been prevented from doing so by illness or by Parliamentary or public business. It also asked the most important question of all. It pointed out that under the existing proposals there would be a number of possible choices for peers, and it asked whether the peer wished to be a voting peer, a non-voting peer with a right to attend, or to disclaim his right to attend.
So we have the first indication which has been presented to the Committee as to how many peers want to be voting peers. The fact that the Government have come here without really knowing this, other than the conclusions of a cosy group of people sitting around a table and all claiming greater knowledge than they possess and greater ability and understanding than we know they did possess, is quite deplorable. This is an extraordinary lapse from what the Government should and could have done.
The survey asked those who wished to be voting peers if they would be prepared to be non-voting peers if they were not successful—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely but I suggest that the only


portion relevant to the Amendment is that section of the survey which deals with the question of attendances. I must ask him to confine himself at this stage to that section.

Mr. Sheldon: This part is the attendance part, Sir Myer.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I understood the hon. Gentleman to be referring to the ascertainment of whether noble Lords wished to be voting peers or non-voting peers. That is not in order at this stage.

Mr. Sheldon: Those peers who wanted to be non-voting were asked about their attendances. I was attempting to explain—perhaps not very well—that the survey asked the peers whether, if they were not selected as voting peers, they would be prepared to be non-voting, and, as nonvoting peers, how often they would attend. I apologise if I did not get it all out rather quicker, thus saving your intervention, Sir Myer.
For the first time we have had an analysis of how many people would wish to attend, and how frequently. We all know that this does not produce certainty. The only thing that we know, and this is learnt by management organisations all over the world, is that the limitations upon this method are much less than the limitations imposed upon the collective thoughts of half a dozen people who claim to know more than they do. Although we need to read these conclusions with some care, this is the case with all examinations. This provides a much larger base from which to draw our conclusions.
The next question dealt with attendance. It was asked:
What salary levels would be regarded as adequate for different levels of attendance? 
If we had different minimum levels of attendance, we wanted to know how peers would expect the salary to be adjusted. We asked questions about retirement age, which is not relevant here, and factual questions to discover whether the respondent was a Government supporter, an Opposition supporter or a crossbencher. We have begun an analysis of the 100 replies, and so far we have got only preliminary conclusions. I hope that further studies of these replies will be made

and that we shall have some further information—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the final studies will be in before we have concluded the debate on this Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: That will not be possible, but there is even better news for you, Sir Myer, and it is that they will be in time for some subsequent Amendments. I do not intend to go through this in great detail, although it is all here.

Mr. Michael Foot: Some of us think that my hon. Friend is rather skimping this. Will he not give us the interim figures about atendances? Some of us are on tenterhooks. We have heard the questions. We do not want him to pass on before he has read the answers dealing with attendances. I think he is doing a great service to the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is certainly doing the Committee a great service, but I do not think he requires the hon. Member's assistance in his mathematical analysis of the situation.

Mr. Sheldon: I will give some of the interim figures which I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend. Anyone who has undertaken a survey knows that there are all sorts of interesting conclusions which can arise as a result of examination, but which may not be apparent on first consideration. It is conclusions of that kind that will be the result of subsequent examination. At this stage I should like to point out one or two important statistics. First, the salaries expected as being appropriate was one of my biggest surprises. It was discovered that the median salary of attendance for 31 per cent. to 40 per cent., which is the range covered by the Government's proposition, was £1,100—

9.30 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman continues to develop this argument of £11,000 per annum payment for membership of the other place, there will be nobody left to argue this Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: Perhaps I could end that rush straight away by pointing out that £1,100 was the figure suggested, although the figures ranged from £6,000 to £500.
Of all the respondents, 72 per cent. wished to be voting peers. On analysis, and one cannot go too much by this because it is broadly within the limits of statistical error, there were 74 per cent. Government, 67 per cent. Opposition and 78 per cent. cross-benchers who wished to be voting peers.
The biggest surprise of all, a matter which will affect attendance levels and to which my right hon. Friend will have to direct his attention, was that 95 per cent. of those wishing to be voting peers would be prepared to attend as nonvoting peers. I doubt whether the attendance figures that my right hon. Friend has assumed have taken into account this surprising figure of 95 per cent.
There is a space for remarks, and the one which I have just picked up—it was not planned—has this remark:
I think Mr. Robert Sheldon, M.P., is very silly but I am very pleased to answer his questionnnaire.
I am very pleased to use the results and do not pay too much attention to the reasons for filling in the questionnaires. If such a large number of frustrated voting peers will be attending as nonvoting peers, the Government will have to consider how they are to be accommodated and what services are available for them.
My only indication of the reason why so many peers are prepared to stay on and not vote is that some of them have been convinced that the power of the House of Lords will be increased in a way that they welcome. They realise, as the Lord Chancellor said, that although the powers may be a little reduced from the massive powers which we know they dare not exercise, they will be used. It means that anyone attending the House of Lords in the future will have a more interesting job to do and, what concerns us most, a much more powerful job. It is that which Members of the other place find so interesting and what makes 72 per cent. of them, some of whom hardly attend at all now, wish to become voting peers. They know that they will have real power. Of those who are not going to be selected as voting peers, 95 per cent. are prepared to accept non-voting

status, because they know that the new House of Lords will be a centre of power. If one is not part of a power machine, it is not bad to be near the centre of power. These are my conclusions, drawn not from the statistical part of the survey but from reading some of the comments made in replies.
The other aspect of attendance is that there is some difference between life peers and peers of succession, life peers wanting more salary and peers of succession tending to be more in favour of a daily allowance. I suppose that that can be tied in with certain levels of taxation.
As to attendance up to the age of retirement, 54 per cent. of those filling in the questionnaire do not wish to have any retirement age.
There is one feature of this survey to which I ought to draw attention. I have been able to detect a bias in favour of those more active peers. It was to be expected that peers who are more active in the House of Lords would tend to reply to the questionnaire more promptly. It is possible to remove this bias and present a true picture of the House of Lords as a body. However, it would require statistical information based on the present composition of the House of Lords, and that information is being denied to us.
We have discussed the kind of information which would be required to relate the statistical sample that we have produced to an average typical sample in the House of Lords. One would require to have the present situation statistically analysed and related to the same survey before one could give a completely unbiased survey.

Sir C. Osborne: It is obvious that a lot of the details in this very fine survey cannot be given to the Committee because of the rules of order. However, will the hon. Gentleman make the full details available so that we can have complete information before us when we come to further debates?

Mr. Sheldon: I am hoping to do that, and I hope it will coincide with the publication of the document that my right hon. Friend has. I have no secrets in these matters. In asking peers to respond, I stated clearly that the information would be published but that there


was no question of identifying individual peers. If I do this, I am sure that my right hoi. Friend will make his document available, because that will result in a better understanding of this Bill.

Mr. John Hay: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that statistical information is often given by a Minister requesting the eave of the House to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Would he consider asking leave to circulate details of this survey in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Sheldon: I should be happy to circulate this survey in the OFFICIAL REPORT if permission were given.
There is one other aspect I should like to mention about attendances as a result of this survey. The recipients of the survey were asked what attendance they would put in with an adequate salary, on the one hand—it was not defined further than that—or, on the other hand, with a daily allowance. This was of very great importance to the Amendment. We discovered that, with an adequate salary, we could expect something over 70 per cent. attendance and, with a daily allowance, about 60 per cent. attendance. The difference is not as wide as we might think, but the difference existed and the Government should have borne it in mind.
The 70 per cent., on the basis of an adequate salary, is well above the 33 per cent. attendance on which the White Paper was based. It might be assumed that when the Government come to pick their voting peers they will obviously have a great bias in favour of those who are dedicated and interested and, therefore, likely to attend the most. But, even on this sample survey, not picking the keenest Members, we found that there would be 70 per cent. attendance although the Government are assuming 33 per cent. attendance. There is no connection between these two figures.
I thought some of the Amendments were over-optimistic. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) seeks to increase the figure to two-thirds—67 per cent. My hon. Friend is nearly bang on. On that basis I shall have to review my own Amendment which seeks to make it 50 per cent. That was only a guess. At that stage I had no information. However, my guess was better than that of the Government. Theirs was a rotten guess.

They are trying to create a House of Lords on the basis of a rotten guess. If they are to make a guess they should get it a little nearer right. There are ways to do this. They should do it. These are not secret methods. They are open and available. If they wanted to do the job properly they should have had enough understanding of the nature of the problem to make the right attempt at the beginning.

Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend must be fair. The Opposition Front Bench, by some extraordinary process, made exactly the same guess.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Powell.

Mr. Sheldon: I have not yet finished.

The Temporary Chairman: I apologise to the hon. Member. He seems to be the unfortunate victim of hon. Members intervening and the Chair assuming that he has finished his speech.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for your kind consideration, Sir Myer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has pointed out the deficiences of the Opposition Front Bench. He is right to do that. In this matter there was a conspiracy of incompetence between the two Front Benches. Neither side knew, wanted to know, or made any attempt to find out. They assumed that they were the recipients of all knowledge in this matter and they sat together cosily in that little room fortifying each other with the accuracy of their observations. But they failed to find out that the Bill was not founded on reality but on their own imaginations.

Mr. Peyton: In stating, as he has done, that there has been a conspiracy between the two Front Benches, I think the hon. Gentleman is bound to admit that the superior parenthood belongs to his Front Bench, and that any responsibility on this side is at least redeemed by a very diminished enthusiasm for this filthy Bill which the Government persist in pursuing.

Mr. Sheldon: We all know that the diminishing interest is due to the activities of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but in this conspiracy of incompetence which


was entered into by the two Front Benches I do not think either side will get any real reward from it until the Bill is finally changed.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair.]

I should like, now, to deal with some of the other matters relating to the Amendment. One of the factors in asking for a higher attendance in the House of Lords is the reduction in the number of backwoodsmen. As we raise the level of attendance there, so we diminish the number of backwoodsmen who have rather less to contribute. The other factor relating to attendance is that we must beware that in fixing any attendance the minimum may tend very easily to become the maximum. A number of peers have commented on this, and perhaps I might quote one or two of their comments. One said that peers clock in just to draw their bonus. Another said that many Lords attend to make sure they are seen, and then go home. This should not surprise us. Whatever figure is finally accepted, it may, for a fair number of peers, tend to become the maximum rather than the minimum one.

The important thing about attendance is that it is tied up with salary, and if we are going to pay members of the House of Lords we have a right to demand certain value for that money. They cannot avoid the obligation of giving the country and Parliament some value for that money.

Mr. John Smith: Is not that a most dangerous idea to introduce? I think that it would be most unfortunate if that idea were extended to this Chamber.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman knows that the safeguard here lies with the electorate. We are responsible to the people who send us here. If we do not do what is required, or what is thought to be of value, we are soon told of our shortcomings by people in our constituency. The point about the House of Lords is that the Members there are not responsible to the electorate, and if they want to regard the salary as a bonanza there is nobody to say them nay. If they want to attend only very rarely there is nobody to call them to account. Last year there were only 137 sitting days in the

House of Lords. One-third of that is 45 or 46. If we take away the days on which they are absent on Parliamentary business, on public business, or are ill, many people will get away with 20 or 25 days attendance throughout the year, and will be paid a salary for that, with nobody to call them to account.
This could be a bonanza to a life peer who, when he went to the other place, never expected to receive it. He gave no undertaking. He went there on a quite different basis and if he attends hardly at all, no one can call him to account and his salary will be just money in his pocket. The House of Lords may have some claims to a greater knowledge of what is going on, but when we leave the House of Commons, we learn something about the country by going back to our constituencies—

The Chairman: Order. I am having some difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Sheldon: So since they can get away with an attendance of as low as 45 days, or, if they make the permitted number of claims, 25 days a year, for which they receive £2,000, the ratio is £20,000 a year. It is worth their while to come in—

The Chairman: Order. There is nothing about this in the Amendment. We are concerned with a percentage, a fraction, of attendances.

Mr. Sheldon: I am also concerned with the number of days that they attend, Mr. Irving, which is part of the percentage. Although they may attend only for a few days, they can get large sums of money for a few hours' attendance. We should not accept this without question.
My main concern has been with the whole approach to the House of Lords and the preparation of the model. Instead of using the normal tools of investigation, examination and comparison which are available to everyone—if they were available to back benchers, they should have been available to the Government—the Government preferred secrecy and the prevention of full discussion—

The Chairman: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has already submitted this argument to the Committee more than once, he is now concerned, or should be


concerned, on this Amendment with minimum attendance.

Mr. Powell: Not for the first time in these proceedings, I can assure the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that he has put the Committee very much in his debt not only by the thoroughness with which he has investigated such thinking as there is behind the scheme embodied in the Bill but by the research which he put in hand, which has at least shown up the shoddiness and artificiality of that scheme. We shall, of course, look forward to studying what he has said in HANSARD tomorrow and also to the data which we hope will be forthcoming later. Clearly, modifications and corrections will need to be applied to it, but I am sure that it will remain a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the present working of the constitution and certainly a standard by which we can judge the deplorable absence of any such thought and research behind the Government's scheme.
The figure of one-third which these Amendments propose in various ways to alter is one of a group of interrelated figures in the Government's scheme. Two of those figures—one-third and the retirement age of 72—are in the Bill. A third figure, the size of the House, 230, is in the White Paper and the fourth figure mentioned in this debate, which is relevant and co-ordinate with the others, is not even mentioned in the White Paper. That is, the prospective theoretical figure of £2,000 per annum remuneration.
As has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and earlier by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), these three or four figures are coordinate with one another. One cannot alter one without affecting the others; they hang together and are viewed by the Government as hanging together.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale put a very pertinent question earlier today in which he asked which of these figures came first. Which figure did the Government think of first and work from to arrive at the others? I will put my answer to that question. I believe it can be derived from the intervention which the Secretary of State made earlier in the debate on this question, for it is deplorably obvious that in considering these Amendments we are dependent solely

upon that scanty information which the right hon. Gentleman vouchsafed. Obviously the Government did look at some alternatives, though they did not do a tithe of the work which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has done.
The very word "calculation" which the right hon. Gentleman used in his speech on 26th February, and the word "model" which I notice occurred once or twice earlier today in connecton with the document we have not been able to see, show that alternatives were considered. It can be proved from the information which the Secretary of State gave in the course of the first part of the debate how extraordinarily simple was the sort of clockwork contraption which lies behind this Bill and which we are being asked to accept on trust.
The Government have shown themselves somewhat secretive about their workings. There are two reasons for secretiveness. Sometimes people are secretive because they want to conceal something, but they may also be secretive because they have remarkably little to conceal and do not want it known how little there is to conceal. I suspect that that, and not the more sinister desire to withhold a great mass of detailed information from the Committee, lies behind the extraordinary coyness which we witnessed—

Sir D. Glover: Is it in order for a member of the Government Front Bench to start throwing missiles across the Chamber?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I did not throw anything across the Chamber.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Powell: The information given by the right hon. Gentleman to which I refer appears in c. 1844 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 26th February. The right hon. Gentleman was giving the figures for the Session 1967–68 of peers, by succession and of first creation, who had attended for one-third of the sittings and for one-half of them. He also showed how those numbers would be reduced by the application of the retiring age of 72—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Sir Edward Boyle(seated and covered): On a point of order. I have never before raised a point or order in these circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not

hear anybody shout "Aye" when the Question was put and I defy any hon. Member to state categorically that "Aye" was shouted at that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I was under the impression that "Aye" was called; but, having proceeded, I must carry on with the Division. There will be another opportunity to test the cries before long.

The House having divided: Ayes 161, Noes 76.

Division No. 123.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland


Alldritt, Walter
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Neal, Harold


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Ogden, Eric


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oswald, Thomas


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bence, Cyril
Hannan, William
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bishop, E. S.
Haseldine, Norman
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blackburn, F.
Hazell, Bert
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boyden, James
Henig, Stanley
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hilton, W. S.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brooks, Edwin
Hobden, Dennis
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, B. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, James
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cant, R, B.
Hynd, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hutl, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Cronin, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Silverman, Julius


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Taverne, Dick


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Luard, Evan
Tuck, Raphael


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Varley, Eric G.


Davies, lfor (Gower)
McBride, Neil
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dell, Edmund
McCann, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.




Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wallace, George


Dewar, Donald

Watkins, David (Consett)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Mackie, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)



Maclennan, Robert



Doig, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Weitzman, David


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wellbeloved, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitaker, Ben


English, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Ennals, David
Manuel, Archie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Finch, Harold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ford, Ben
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. J. Harper.


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John (Aberavon)





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Biffen, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bell, Ronald
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel


Astor, John
Bidwell, Sydney
Black, Sir Cyril




Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Peyton, John


Body, Richard
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pym, Francis


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick ( Angus, N&M)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kimball, Marcus
Roebuck, Roy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Ryan, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, John (Reading)
Sheldon, Robert


Dean, Paul
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silvester, Frederick


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, John (London & W' minster)


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maude, Angus
Taylor. Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Waddington, David


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Monro, Hector
Weather ill, Bernard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar



Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Colonel Sir Douglas Glover and


Heffer, Eric S.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Dr. Bennett.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Park, Trevor

PARLIAMENT (No. 2) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Powell: Before we took the decision to continue for a bit, I was talking about the only relevant information which has been vouchsafed to us, namely that given on 26th February by the Secretary of State for Social Services, in our task of considering whether one-third of possible total attendances is the right attendance qualification for a voting peer in the new Chamber. I was quoting the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. After applying the retiring age of 72, the right hon. Gentleman noted that in the last complete Session
Ninety-nine created peers and 117 peers by succession under the age of 72 
had fulfilled the one-third qualification. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say this:
My conclusion is that, unless many more peers were created an attendance requirement of 50 per cent. would produce a much smaller voting House than the 230 thought desirable, if that is the figure we wanted."—[OFFICIAL RF. PORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1845.]
Before I come to the main deduction from those figures, I want to point out the interesting implication of those statistics when they are applied to the table in the White Paper.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Irving, that it is exceedingly hard to listen to the very closely knit arguments of my right hon. Friend against the background

of the constant parrot-like chatter which emanates uninterruptedly from the Front Bench opposite?

The Chairman: I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will wish to hear the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Powell: The table on page 5 of the White Paper gives the total numbers, divided into peers by creation and peers by succession, who in that same Session attended the House of Lords for more than one-third of the sittings. Therefore, by applying the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, we can ascertain what proportion of the two categories were within retirement age. It gives the interesting result that of the peers of first creation, of whom a total of 153 attended at least one-third of the sittings, only 99 were under 72, whereas of the 138 peers by succession who so attended as many as 117 were under 72. This is a not uninteresting figure, because it illustrates the much lower average age of peers by succession and emphasises that over one-third of the noble Lords sitting in another place as peers of first creation are over the retirement age which is written into the Bill. It is one of the indications of how easily a Chamber by appointment would tend to become, if it be not too disrespectful an expression, a Chamber of dead-beats.
10.15 p.m.
However, the main point about the intervention on 26th February of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is that he showed clearly the reason why one-third had been adopted as the qualification figure. It was for the sake


of a House of 230. He said that it was in order to produce of House of 230—" If that is the figure we wanted ". In other words, the figure which we are debating is not one at which the Government arrived because, for example, they thought it reasonable that a voting peer should attend at least one sitting in three; it was not because they thought that one-third was a reasonable attendance record in itself; it was not because they thought that a peer who attended one sitting in three would have a current grasp of the business going through the House. It was not for any of those factual, decent, rational grounds that the one-third was written into the Bill. It was written in simply for a mathematical reason—no, for a mechanical reason—that it would make possible the production of a House of 230, 230 having been predetermined already. In other words, in this circular argument, the starting point at which the Government came into the circle was the assumption of a House of 230 Members.
That is cross-checked if we look at the second of the interlocked figures, namely, the retirement age, for although the Government have argued that there is some relationship between the retirement age of 72 and the practice in other walks of life, in reality there is one reason and one reason only for the choice of precisely that figure. There is one reason only why the age of 72, not 70, 73 or 75 is chosen, and that is the reason which I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General on 26th February, when I said to him:
Given an assumed age structure of the new Chamber, and given certain mortality tables, presumably the age of retirement that is required to maintain a stable total membership is a unique and unambiguous figure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February. 1969; Vol. 778, c. 1821.]
This must be so.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. A few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) drew your attention and that of the Committee to the noise emanating without cease from the Treasury Bench, and he remarked that it was particularly reprehensible when the Committee was trying to follow an important and intricate argument presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Since that time,

we have not been spared a second of that nattering, nattering by the Secretary of State for Social Services in particular, who is not only engaged in permanent conversation but has turned his back on the proceedings. Ought not he, above all, to be paying some attention to our proceedings?

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the Committee will give attention to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Mr. Powell: I was pointing out that, given a certain mortality, which must be assumed and which is ascertainable from the mortality tables, and given an age composition of the House, which, again, is a basic assumption which can be made, there is only one age of retirement—

Hon. Members: Order.

Sir. D. Glover: On a point of order. Mr. Irving—

The Chairman: Order. I am watching hon. and right hon. Members. I do not think that, as yet, the right hon. Gentleman has disturbed the Committee. I shall draw attention to it if he does.

Mr. Powell: There is only one age of retirement which would keep that figure stable over—

Sir D. Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Irving. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is treating the Committee with contempt. You have just said that you are watching hon. and right hon. Members. But even before my right hon. Friend had started to speak, the right hon. Gentleman was still nattering away to his colleague on the Front Bench. It is disgraceful.

The Chairman: Order. As far as the Chair is concerned, the question is whether the right hon. Gentleman is disturbing the Committee. I cannot say that much so far.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Manners makyth man.

Mr. Powell: For the third or fourth time—and I hope not to trouble the Committee with a further unintended repetition of the statement—I repeat that the significance of the age of 72 is that it is the unique figure which, on those assumptions, would keep that stable figure of a 230 membership for the new Chamber.
Therefore, looking at the other two elements in this trinity of co-ordinated, interlocking figures, we are led inexorably to the conclusion that the starting figure was the 230. Accordingly, we cannot make up our minds either on the figure in the Bill or on any of the Amendments before the Committee unless we have gained some insight into the origin, and therefore the validity, of this assumed starting point of a Chamber of 230, from which everything else, including the one-third qualification, is derived.
We are all familiar with the passage in the White Paper in which the figure of 230 first struck our attention. It is a striking figure, because one would have thought that the Government, if they were just putting forward a specimen House as an example to show how it might be composed, would have hit on a round figure like 200 or 250. It is very natural to inquire, "Why 230?". This will presently appear. In paragraph 48 of the White Paper they give us a breakdown of the figure of 230 into the figures for the parties and cross-benchers—105 Government, 80 Conservative, 15 Liberal and 30 cross-benchers. Although those add up to 230, they have been constructed so as to add up to 230. The figure of 230 is not arrived at as the sum of those figures; those figures are arrived at as figures of which the sum will be 230.
So we are still looking for the origin of this crucial figure, which, although it is first put forward in the White Paper as a specimen, as just an example to show how such a restructured Chamber might work, on a take it or leave it basis—" Let us say 230 and see how it works "—and although that 230 is not in the Bill, it governs provisions written into the Bill, including the provision that the Committee is debating.
Therefore, it is absolutely crucial for us to discover how we came by this 230, by which we have been hag-ridden ever since. We begin to find the answer to that earlier in the White Paper, in paragraph 11, where the same figure appears in a most interesting context. The last sentence says:
The average daily attendance for 1967–68 up to 1st August was about 230. …
There—and I will prove this further as I go along—is the wizardry, there is the

scientific basis which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was desiderating for the figure of 230—not a specimen, not an example among many, but a governing consideration from which so much else has to be derived.
What the Government did, what the cabal between the two sides in the two Houses did, was to say, "Let us look and see how many people were attending for one-third of the time, say, in the present Session of 1967–68. It was 230—well, then, let us make that a starting point and work everything out from there. After all, the whole thing is arbitrary. One starting point is as arbitrary as another. No one's nose will be put out of joint if we do not change anything. In the present session there are 230 noble lords attending one-third of the time."
Why one-third of the time? That was one of the columns they got out in their statistical examination of attendance in the Session 1967–68. Anything higher would have given a derisory, much smaller figure. So they settled for 230. It is because of the attendance for one-third or more of the sittings of 230 peers on average daily attendance—average in the last complete Session—that 230 was made the starting point in the White Paper that the party composition and the crazy arrangement with crossbenchers were worked out so as to add up to 230; that the statistics were used to derive a retirement age of 72; and that by a kind of circulus vitiosus the figure we are discussing of one-third as the qualifying attendance was written back into the Bill in this subsection.
But it went much further than that. So many more things become clear to us at last from the revelation of the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion when we were discussing this Amendment. Day after day during the proceedings on the Bill, the Committee has puzzled over the figure of 77—not the number of the beast but the number of peers by succession who some gift of second sight had apparently informed the Government would become voting peers in the new Chamber. We could not understand it. We puzzled about it and asked about it at sitting after sitting.
We got a breakdown from the Home Secretary on 19th February. It is in


column 513 of HANSARD of that date. But that only increased our astonishment. Seventy-seven, in all conscience, was a specific figure. It was exactly 77—not 76 or 78—peers by succession who would have to be voting peers in order to make up the tale of the new House. It was more than that. He knew exactly what party they would each belong to, that it would be necessary to take 24 Labour peers by succession and make them voting peers, 42 Conservatives, seven Liberals and four crossbenchers. It all adds up to 77.
The right hon. Gentleman did not give us the explanation but the figures given by the Secretary of State for the Social Services earlier in the debate on this Amendment, the disclosure of the train of reasoning, explain everything. What we have to do is to read these figures together with the left-hand column in the table on page 5, which analyses the peers who attended in the present House for more than one-third of the sittings in 1967–68. So the Government, by assuming a House of 230—a voting House—Members retiring at 72, sitting for at least one-third of the sittings, arrived at a means of working from the existing House to their hypothetical House. Let us just run briefly through the figures and see what they disclose.
In the White Paper, there are to be 105 Labour peers in the new House. There are 81 Labour peers of first creation in the existing House who sit more than one-third of the time. Take 81 from 105 and we get 24. We therefore have to make 24 hereditary Labour peers into voting peers by making them peers of first creation.
10.30 p.m.
But this is a very strange thing, too. The Home Secretary had not noticed that there were not as many as 24 Labour peers by succession available; there are only 14 of them who sit for one-third of the time, and there are only 21 altogether. Hon. Members opposite may be especially pleased to know that it is the intention of their Government, in order to preserve the integrity of the scheme, to create three more Labour hereditary peers in order that 24 may be converted from hereditary peers into life peers and thus make up the tale of 105.
I do not want to weary the Committee by going through all the figures. Anyone can amuse himself by taking page 5 of the White Paper and column 531 of HANSARD of 19th February and getting out the figures for himself. There are to be 80 Conservative peers. There are already 38 Conservative peers of first creation sitting one-third of the time; 38 from 80 is 42 and that is the figure of Conservative peers by succession who are to be made voting peers in the new Chamber.
Here I have an apology to make. I am delighted that it should chance that sentry duty on the Opposition Front Bench is being done at the moment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I have an apology to make to him and to my other right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I have to confess an unworthy thought which I and some of my colleagues had entertained.
When we were told that there were to be precisely 77 present successionary peers who were to be given voting peerages and that 42 were to be Conservatives, I must admit, and I repent of it, that an unworthy thought entered our minds. We imagined as the only way of explain-such precise figures that the cabal must have gone through the nominal list together marking off those whom the respective Whips thought suitable to receive this accolade and had arrived in that arbitrary manner at 42. The right hon. Gentleman's disclosure earlier in the debate has absolutely acquitted my right hon. Friend and his colleagues of any possible suspicion of this crime.
Indeed, we begin to understand how astonished the Opposition Front Bench was, no less astonished than ourselves, when it heard of these figures. There is a simple and complete alibi which my right hon. Friends possess. These figures are derived from the attendances in the upper House up to 1st August, 1968, and that is well after the conversations between the two sides were broken off. It is therefore evident that this hair-raising piece of arithmetic was being done by the Government long after they had ceased to be in contact with my right hon. Friends, and thus, both because the figures are explicable on other grounds and on the chronological alibi, I take this opportunity, and I am happy to be able to do so,


of saying that I and, I am sure, everyone else on this side of the Committee absolutely acquit the Opposition Front Bench of any complicity in this nonsense and of any unworthy motives which may have lain behind it.
For the sake of completeness, I will add that the Liberals work out at 15 Liberals in the new House, which would be a strong representation compared with the House of Commons. There are to be 15 Liberals in the new House. Minus eight Literals peers of first creation who already attend one-third of the time, this leaves seven Liberal peers by succession to be made voting peers. This is very lucky for them, because the proportion is as high as 65 per cent., of the Liberal peers by succession who attend regularly. Even of the total it is 45 per cent., which is far better than any other party.
It is better to belong to a party than to no party at all—I am sure a sentiment universally entertained in this Committee—because when we come to the C.B.s—I mean the cross-benchers—they fare terribly badly. There are about 30 C.B.s in the new House, and there are already 26 C.B.s of first creation, who are attending assiduously in the present House of Lords, which leaves only four to be made, out of the 52 who attend one-third of the time or the 413 C.B.s by succession who are in the present House. So it is a mouldy ration for a C.B. unless he happens also to be a Law Lord, to which we shall come later.
As a result of the adoption of this arbitrary starting point of 230, the existing figure of one-third attendance in one Session, which is the latest Session, we have not only arrived at the arbitrary figures for retirement and the arbitrary figure of one-third attendance as the qualification for voting, but we have also arrived at these ludicrous intentions for the translation of successionary peers into voting peers.
The Government, so slipshod has been their way, have not even done this simple, clockwork sort of arithmetic correctly. They have not applied the correction for retirement at 72 to the figures in the left-hand column of the table on page 5, which they are using to arrive at the number of translations from hereditary into new voting peers. They have been working upon the totals of one-third attendance in the new House in each case, and

not upon the totals of one-third attendance under 72. The joyous consequence of this will be that if this thing ever were set up—which please God it never will be—then the number of hereditary peers who would have to be translated into voting peers to make the thing work would be substantially larger even than the figures which the Government have put forward. Even on this simple arithmetic, this clockwork, child arithmetic, they have not even then been able to put their own assumptions into the sum to get the right figures.
The whole thing, and this is the conclusion to which an examination of every provision in the Bill brings us back, is grotesque. Just for the sake of constructing an artificial Chamber with an artificial balance which would present us all the time with a conundrum or dilemma between irrestible obstinacy and absolute subservience, we have to go through all this rigmarole of imposing conditions, qualifications and regulations. We have to introduce an attendance qualification for voting which none of us really believes is sound. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne showed how absurd the one-third attendance is. He showed how out of line with reality it is. I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who would seriously attempt to justify, on merits, this particular choice of figure.
We have been driven into this absurdity, and hon. Members opposite will be driven through the Lobby in defence of this absurdity, in order to construct a Chamber which will not work, a Chamber which will confer on us no benefits that we cannot get from the present Chamber, but which, if it could be brought into existence, would constantly be causing anxiety, interruption and frustration both to this House and to itself.
Wherever it is tested, this scheme breaks down. I forget how many days we have so far spent in testing it in each of its particulars and arriving uniformily experimentally at the same result. Hon. Members, those who vote with and those who vote against the Government, and people out of doors with more serious things to think about and to worry about, are asking ever more insistently, how much longer do we have to go on before the Government admit that the thing is grotesque nonsense and take it away?

Mr. Heffer: I approach the Amendment differently from the way in which it has been approached by other hon. Members. After listening to the speeches of some hon. Members I am beginning to wonder why I am opposing this Bill. The more one looks at it, the more attractive it becomes.
The total number of days during which the other place sat last Session was 137. On the basis of one-third attendance, that means attendance on 45 or 46 days during a Session. I would not mind having a job where I was expected to attend only for 45 or 46 days a year. The rush by the average person in the street to enter the House of Lords on that basis would be phenomenal.
We know that consideration of the salary is being held back for the time being, but ultimately this would mean a £2,000 a year job for 45 days. The other place starts at 2.30 p.m. and usually tries to finish its business so that members can get home for dinner by 8 o'clock.

Mr. Birch: Sometimes they have an interval for dinner.

Mr. Heffer: That is a 5½-hour day. So for £2,000 they will put in 45 5½-hour days a year. That is not a bad job, and I am wondering why I am opposing the Bill. I ought to be one of the three extra peers who will have to be created by the Labour Party; anyone with real intelligence would be trying to get into the other place.
10.45 p.m.
In the Amendment which I am supporting, we are being a little harsh on the noble Lords, because we say that it should go up to two-thirds. That would mean their working 90 days a year. Again, I think that most building operatives, dockers and factory workers would be very pleased to work for only 90 days a year and receive ultimately the sort of remuneration which noble Lords are likely to receive.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman has been a great ally of mine during our consideration of the Bill. But, before he pursues his argument too far, may I remind him that, in the last Division, barely half the total number of hon. Members, who are paid on a full-time basis, were present to vote?

Mr. Heffer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Members are not voting because they are so disinterested in the Bill. Those of us who are here are opposing it because we realise that it must be fought, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are here to sustain it. In most Divisions so far, something like 130 hon. Members have voted. The great mass of hon. Members are not interested. They do not believe that it is worth while and, in a sense, I agree with them, because I do not think that it is worth while. My disagreement with them arises from the undoubted fact that, if they joined with us to oppose the Bill, it would get no further.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be discussing the minimum attendance. I hope that he will come to the Amendment.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Irving, a comparison was made with the attendance in this Committee. I think that there was some relevance to the Amendment, though perhaps not much.
I approach this matter a little differently from other hon. Members. With this attractive situation, it seems to me that people would want to go into the other Chamber, particularly on the basis proposed.
In paragraph 4 of the White Paper, we are told by the Government:
The Government considers that any reform of the House of Lords should be based on the following propositions: (a) in the framework of a modern parliamentary system the second chamber has an essential rôle to play, complementary to but not rivalling that of the Commons; (b) the present composition and powers of the House of Lords prevent it from performing that rôle as effectively as it should "—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not relating his remarks to the Amendment, which is concerned with minimum attendances.

Mr. Heffer: I am just coming to that very point. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made the point that, with a figure of 230, an attendance of one-third is based upon what happens today. There are 230 peers who attend regularly one-third of the time. We are told that the


intention is to reform the other Chamber to make it more efficient. But this is what happens now.
We have the suggestion in paragraph 4 of the White Paper that the composition of the House of Lords prevents it from performing its rôle as effectively as it should. At the same time as we have this argument, the reality of the figures and the one-third attendance is based upon what happens now. I do not see how the argument can be sustained that these proposals will make it a more efficient House of Lords which can be complementary to the work of this Chamber. If that is not the object, what is it? What are we talking about? What is the purpose of this if it is not to make the House of Lords more efficient so that it can assist and be complementary to this Chamber?
The House of Lords will have extra powers, and those powers will be determined by the patronage of the two Front Benches. That is what is behind this proposal. That is what we are talking about when we talk about attendance. That is how this figure has been arrived at, and I do not think that we can accept it, because no genuine agreement is being put forward to support it.
The only way to test whether we are concerned with making the other place more efficient and giving it a rôle complementary to that of this House is to raise the attendance figure. Some hon. Members have suggested a half, but I do not think that is enough. I think that two-thirds is about right.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of a higher attendance figure, but is not he one of those who do not want the peers to attend at all?

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is right if he means that I should like to see the second Chamber abolished and an elected—

The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member will be out of order if he pursues that one.

Mr. Heffer: I am very sorry. The answer to that question will never be known. It can be guessed. I think that hon. Members are pretty good guessers, and that they have a vague idea of what I feel about the other place.
Some hon. Members have suggested a half, and others have suggested that it should be only one-fifth, which is about 28 days in the year. That makes it all the more attractive. To attend for only one-fifth of the time, or 28 days in a year, would be exceedingly attractive, especially if one were to receive £2,000 a year for doing so, and with no constituency problems. If one subtracts from that days off for illness, for attending to Parliamentary duties, and for other Governmental duties, it becomes a very attractive proposition indeed. I do not know why I am arguing against it. I really ought to be arguing for getting in there at the earliest possible moment. I really ought to support the Amendment, because this would make it a very attractive proposition.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member is dealing very ably with the question of minimum attendance, but perhaps I might remind him that there is nothing in the White Paper or in the Bill about the number of hours of attendance when someone is supposed to be there.

The Chairman: Order. There is nothing in the Amendment about that, either.

Mr. Heffer: It is relevant, because it is true. Figures of one-third and two-thirds have been suggested, but there is nothing which says that, having clocked in, a Member of the other place has to stay there for the whole of the sitting and clock out at the end. It is merely a question of clocking in.

Mr. Mendelson: It would not be accepted for the Ford's agreement, would it?

Mr. Heffer: No. And there is no penalty clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did the Committee a great service when he outlined the survey. For the first time we have some idea of the figures and the noble Lords' feelings. His proposal that this should be entered into the records of the Committee should be taken up, and we might also enter the mysterious document which was in the Library but may not be there now, which may contain 15 pages or may not, which we have not seen and are not likely to see. Both these documents would help us: unfortunately we do not have them now.

The Amendment raising the attendance from one-third to two-thirds should be supported, but I hope that we will reject the Amendment lowering it to one-fifth, although I understand the reasons for it. If the Government are serious about making the other place an efficient organism, complementary to this House, to help improve our Parliamentary system, they should accept this sensible, logical and modest proposal. It is a test of their sincerity. It is hardly sincere to stick to the figures of 230 and one-third purely on the basis that that is what happens now.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: You have directed, Mr. Irving, that Amendment No. 148, in my name, should be debated with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ashton under Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It is in the opposite sense, so I hope that you will call it for a separate Division. If you were unhappily to decide to the contrary, hon. Members would have to accept either the Bill as it stands or the proposal of the hon. Member to tighten up the attendance qualification. That would put in some difficulty those of us who want to lower the qualification. I put firmly to you, Mr. Irving, the request that you should call Amendment No. 148 at the end of this debate for a Division only.
11.0 p.m.
Many hon. Members dislike the proposed attendance qualification in the Bill, and while this is not the opportunity—such an opportunity will arise on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill—to discuss whether or not there should be such a qualification, it is open to those who wish to discuss Amendment No. 148 to argue, accepting for this purpose that there should be an attendance qualification, that the one proposed in the Measure is too high and that a lower one should be inserted.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that, even with the attendance qualification proposed in the Bill, membership of another place will be a cosy and agreeable life. But his suggestion was based on the assumption that it would be paid. But if one is to believe the Prime Minister, which is an exercise of faith as against experience, as was once said of a second marriage—

Mr. Birch: Hope over experience.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, but in the case of the Prime Minister it is faith against experience. If one believes the Prime Minister in this matter, it is doubtful whether there will be any remuneration. One need only consult the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech. For once the Prime Minister may be 50 per cent. right; and even the spectacle of the ermine figure of "the Lord Heffer of Walton" would not compensate the Committee for the loss we would suffer from the benches opposite.
There is importance in the degree of clock-punching which is to be imposed on noble Lords, because it will affect the character and quality of membership of the other place. The more we insist on a high degree of attendance, the lower will be the field of selection. Many people are prepared to accept life in this Chamber because this is the effective one—they are prepared to come here and attend a great deal—but if we invite people to join a House which, particularly under the scheme proposed by the Bill will be a poor affair anyway, and insist on such an attendance qualification, our field of selection will be smaller.
Or do the Government intend to resort to direction and compulsion? As they have taken powers to direct the level of wages and so many other things, they can hardly be expected to hesitate to take compulsory powers to ennoble people. Unless, as in wages, trade union affairs and labour matters generally, they will resort to direction, they will get the less able sort of person to join a House which will have little power; and that will particularly apply if a high measure of attendance is made a necessary qualification for continued voting and, therefore, for continued salary, if any.
My Amendment proposes that the rate of attendance should be only one in five. Assuming that another place will sit, under the new dispensation, on five days a week, there would need to be a weekly attendance, and I believe that that would be sufficient.

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the higher the degree of attendance insisted upon, the lower would be the field of selection. Did he mean "narrower" or "lower "?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There will be fewer people in the field and they will be of lower quality. We are concerned here with getting people of some standing in the national life and many with other responsibilities and commitments in the national life. The more we make this compulsory punching of the clock a condition, the more we reduce the field of selection. This will be particularly true of the cross-bench peers. No doubt worthy and respectable party men will be proposed by the party Whips to be the Government army, the Opposition army—the question of attendance in the context of the Liberal Party is so delicate that I was not going to refer to it, but no doubt the Liberal army as well—but what about the cross-bench peers? The essence of the present cross-bench peers is that they include a number of extremely eminent and distinguished men. Does anyone, even the hopeful Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, think that we shall get those very distinguished cross-bench peers of today to turn up on the basis of one in three compulsory attendance knowing that if they do not make these necessary attendances they will be excluded from their voting rights?
Yet it is upon these 30 famous cross-bench peers that the whole elaborate structure of the balance between Government and Opposition is based. Ministers have paid a great deal of attention to the argument that they are not giving the Government an automatic majority. If cross-bench peers vote against them, the Government will not have an automatic majority. That argument depends on the quality of these 30 men. Are they to be men of standing and independence or the sort of docile chap who always votes for the Government of the day? This is a criticism of the one-third attendance. I simply do not believe that we will get the eminent figures who at present sit on the cross benches in another place to be voting peers on this basis.
I should be straying from the comparatively narrow field of my Amendment if on the general question of attendance I said more than that the whole attendance qualification is a most degrading one. It is one which no hon. Member has suggested should apply to Members of this House. No doubt from the point of view of the Patronage Secre-

tary it would be jolly convenient and it would perhaps be convenient to the Deputy Chief Whip of the Opposition, but no one has seriously suggested it. We would all regard it as an affront and would reject it. We take the view that we are answerable to our constituents for attendance and activities here and that it is no one else's business how frequently we attend or vote.
Yet it is proposed by the Government to inflict this supreme insult on another place that members who are to vote in another place are not only to be carefully selected so that their party alignment is in right proportions, but they are to be sacked if they do not punch the clock. This is an indication of the squalid concept that this Government have of another place.

The Chairman: Order. In view of the statement of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made and the fact that his Amendment is exceptional, I will concede a Division on it.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: In the span of the last four hours we have had a considerable amount of rhetoric and argument. If it were not for the agreeable charm characteristic of my nation, I might describe it in another way, or perhaps if I were the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party I might use different words.
Be that as it may, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), with that frankness which is sometimes characteristic of him, has made it clear—and it was suggested by other hon. Members—that there is little attempt in the Amendments to improve this part of the Clause. The Amendments have been tabled by hon. Members who admit openly that they are displeased with the whole of the Clause, with the whole rationale of a qualification for the exercise of voting rights in the Lords. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the Committee that it is impossible, even if it were so minded, for it to accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and accept all four Amendments, because they are diametrically opposed to each other.

Mr. Heffer: I did not advise the Committee to accept all four Amendments. I suggested that the Committee should accept that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. Elystan Morgan: When my hon. Friend reads HANSARD tomorrow he may well find that he said what I have attributed to him, although he may not have meant it. All four Amendments would alter the attendance requirement in any Session. That requirement is defined in subsection (2) as
attendance at the sittings of the House (or sittings of Committees of the House) on a number of days equal to not less than one-third of the total number of days on which the House meets during the Session (other than days on which it meets for judicial business only) ".
We have for a number of hours been invited to consider all manner of systems of compilations which would enable us to arrive at a proper basis for determining the voting qualification. What the proper attendance requirement should be is basically and fundamentally a matter of judgment. Account must be taken not only of the need for voting peers who are not paid to have private means or to be able to earn their living outside the House but also of the desirability of including amongst the voting peers those who have jobs outside the House or who live a substantial distance from London and of the importance of securing sufficient voting peers to fulfil the tasks of a second Chamber. The past records of attendance which have been alluded to more than once give a rough estimate of what might be a reasonable requirement. In the Session 1967–68 up to 1st August, 1968, 161 peers under the age of 72 attended over 50 per cent. and 216 peers under the age of 72 over 333⅓ per cent. of the sittings.

Mr. Powell: The Under-Secretary said that one factor to be taken into account in arriving at the one-third was that peers would not be paid. The one-third was already in the scheme when peers were to be paid.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It seems to have been part of the case of nearly everyone who has spoken on these Amendments that there is of necessity a triangle or

quadrilateral of forces interconnected, and it is from that basic hypothesis that right hon. and hon. Members have argued. Of course there is a certain connection between the number of peers who might attend if one takes a certain age as a retiring age, and, again, if one is to consider what conditions might be laid down for membership. But I say that it is no more than a loose connection, and that it is right and proper, as far as this Clause is concerned, that we should direct our minds to the question: assuming that the second Chamber is reformed and that it carries out the duties envisaged in the White Paper and in the Bill at large, is a one-third qualification a reasonable rule or not?

Mr. John Lee: Would my hon. Friend deal with the point whether or not there should be different standards of attendance as between cross-benchers on the one hand and the more sophisticated politicians on the other, and if he cannot deal with this now, will he give an undertaking to deal with it in the "Clause stand part" debate?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: That certainly does not arise on this Amendment, and for my part I do not think that this is a distinction which could properly be drawn.
I wish to put it to the Committee that it is reasonable to assume that in a reformed House most voting peers will wish to attend fairly regularly, and it is expected that many would attend at least half and that a good number would attend two-thirds of the sittings. But so as not to exclude peers who have jobs outside the House or who live away from London, it is desired that the minimum requirement should not be too onerous. I am sure the Committee would regard it as wholly unreasonable to have a qualification of two-thirds attendance. The one-third level proposed in the Bill is, I submit, about right. It is intended not as an optimum level of attendance but only as a drop-out point at which a member should not expect to exercise voting rights.
I would point out to the Committee that Amendment No. 120 is undesirable because it discriminates between different aspects of the work of the House of Lords. It treats certain legislative work


based on legislation passed by the House of Commons as more valuable than other legislative work—for example, Bills starting in the House of Lords—or other debates.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames on having directed his speech wholly to the Amendment that stands in his name. Nevertheless I put it to the Committee that a one-fifth qualification is not really consistent with the status of being a voting peer and part of the working House in the other place.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: We have had a number of suggestions put to us about what the basis of compilation should be. We have had fascinating dissertations on all the mathematical legerdemain which might be employed in order to arrive at certain solutions. We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that this is really a matter for computerisation. I put it to him that his remarks, although delivered at very great length and with considerable wit and charm, nevertheless contain this fallacy. When persons draft the articles of association of a company they do not resort to computers. They do not have comparative studies of what is done in other companies and other countries. They resort to common sense. This is an issue which turns on a matter of judgment and a matter of common sense. I put it to the Committee—I hope I shall not be thought patronising to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—

Mr. Sheldon: If my hon. Friend holds that investigation does not produce results, why did his right hon. Friend go to considerable length in providing information which was then concealed?

Mr. Roebuck: What about the 15-page document?

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I should be the last to argue that research is not valuable in this connection. Of course it has a certain persuasive relevance, but at the end of the day it is basically a question of judgment. With the sole exception of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, not one hon. or right hon. Member has argued that a one-third attendance is unreasonable in this connection.
On that account, and also upon merit, bearing in mind that there will be a broad regional representation, that there will be Members, as the Bill now stands, who are not paid, and that there will be Members having a valuable contribution to make who have jobs outside, it is right and proper that the level should remain at one-third. I warmly invite the Committee, therefore, to reject all four Amendments.

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkinrose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 61.

Division No. 124.]
AYES
[11.23 p.m


Albu, Austen
Coe, Denis
Ennals, David


Alldritt, Walter
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Archer, Peter
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, E.


Ashton, Joe (Basset law)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Finch, Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ford, Ben


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester John


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fowler, Gerry


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rnondda, E.)
Freeson, Reginald


Boyden, James
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Ginsburg, David


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, I for (Gower)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Brooks, Edwin
Dell, Edmund
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Dewar, Donald
Hamling, William


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunnett, Jack
Harper, Joseph


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Haseldine, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
English, Michael
Hazell, Bert




Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rowlands, E.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Manuel, Archie
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hoy, James
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silverman, Julius


Hunter, Adam
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Small, William


Hynd, John
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Moyle, Roland
Varley, Eric G.


Lawson, George
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth S'ton)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Loughlin, Charles
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Luard, Evan
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitaker, Ben


Lubbock, Eric
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Williams Clifford (Abertillery)


McCann, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.



Mackie, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Dr. Miller.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rodgers, William (Stockton)





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Norwood, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orme, Stanley


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hay, John
Peyton, John


Biffen, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hooson, Emlyn
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
lremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Booth, Albert
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roebuck, Roy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryan, John


Clegg, Walter
Lee, John (Reading)
Sheldon, Robert


Crouch, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silvester, Frederick


Dalkeith, Earl of
Marten, Neil
Smith, John (London & W'minster)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maude, Angus
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian



Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
More, Jasper
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Mr. Eric S. Heffer and


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Michael Foot.


Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 18, Noes 142.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[11.31 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Roebuck, Roy


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ryan, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Sheldon, Robert


Booth, Albert
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dickens, James
Norwood, Christopher
Mr. Michael Foot and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Eric S. Heffer.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Archer, Peter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)


Bence, Cyril
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Coe, Denis
Dell, Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Dempsey, James


Blackburn, F.
Concannon, J. D.
Dewar, Donald


Boyden, James
Crawshaw, Richard
Doig, Peter


Bradley, Tom
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Dunnett, Jack


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Eadie, Alex


Brooks, Edwin
Dalyell, Tam
Edwards, William (Merioneth)




English, Michael
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Probert, Arthur


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Loughlin, Charles
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Luard, Evan
Robert, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (C'rn'von)


Fernyhough, E.
Lubbock, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Finch, Harold
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Forrester, John
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fowler, Gerry
McCann, John
Rowlands, E.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Macdonald, A. H.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Hamling, William
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tinn, James


Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie
Urwin, T. W.


Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Haseldine, Norman
Mellish, Rt. Hn, Robert
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hazell, Bert
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitaker, Ben


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hoy, James
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hynd, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman
Dr. Miller.


Lawson, George
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 4, line 4, leave out 'one-third' and insert 'one-fifth'.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 151.

Division No. 126.]
AYES
[11.38 p.m


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biff en, John
Hastings, Stephen
Peyton, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hay, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hn, Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Iremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clegg, Walter
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crouch, David
Marten, Neil
Smith, John (London & W' minster)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maude, Angus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sir Douglas Glover and


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Coe, Denis
English, Michael


Alldritt, Walter
Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Archer, Peter
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fernyhough, E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Finch, Harold


Bence, Cyril
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Forrester, John


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Fowler, Gerry


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Booth, Albert
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Freeson, Reginald


Boyden, James
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Ginsburg, David


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dell, Edmund
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Brooks, Edwin
Dempsey, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Doig, Peter
Hamling, William


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Hannan, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)
Harper, Joseph


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Carmichael, Neil
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Haseldine, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ellis, John
Hazell, Bert




Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hooson, Emlyn
Manuel, Archie
Sheldon, Robert


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hoy, James
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Silverman, Julius


Hunter, Adam
Mendelson, J. J,
Small, William


Hynd, John
Mikardo, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Millan, Bruce
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Taverne, Dick


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tinn, James


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Urwin, T. W.


Lawson, George
Moyle, Roland
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Norwood, Christopher



Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Loughlin, Charles
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'ton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Luard, Evan
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Watkins, David (Consett)



Parker, John (Dagenham)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Lubbock, Eric

Whitaker, Ben


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Clifford (Aberttillery)


McCann, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Price, William (Rugby)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutnerglen)
Probert, Arthur



Mackie, John
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy



McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Alan Fitch and Dr. Miller.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order (Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)).

That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended.—[Mr. Harper.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 49.

Division No. 127.1
AYES
[11.45 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maclennan, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Finch, Harold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
Mailalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Bence, Cyril
Forrester, John
Manuel, Archie


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fowler, Gerry
Marks, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Blackburn, F.
Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Boy den, James
Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.


Bradley, Tom
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Millan, Bruce


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Brooks, Edwin
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Hamling, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Buchan, Norman
Hannan, William
Moyle, Roland


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harper, Joseph
Ogden, Eric


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Haseldine, Norman
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hazell, Bert
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Coe, Denis
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret



Coleman, Donald
Hilton, W. S.




Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Concannon, J. D.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hoy, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.




Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hell)
Probert, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, E.


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dewar, Donald
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Doig, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Silverman, Julius


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCann, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ellis, John
Macdonald, A. H.
Taverne, Dick


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Ennals, David
Mackie, John
Tinn, James




Urwin, T. W.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Varley, Eric G.
Whitaker, Ben
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mr. Alan Fitch and Dr. Miller.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym. Francis


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biff en, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridley, Hn Nicholas


Black, Sir Cyril
lremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roebuck, Roy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boyle, Rt. Hn, Sir Edward
Marten, Neil
Ryan, John


Crouch, David
Maude, Angus
Sheldon, Robert


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mikardo, Ian
Silvester, Frederick


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
More, Jasper
Smith, John (London & W' minster)


Eyre, Reginald P
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Murton, Oscar



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sir Douglas Glover and


Hastings, Stephen
Peyton, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Hay, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Committee report Proceedings suspended.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order

(Sittings of the House (Suspended Sittings)), That the Proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 43.

Division No. 128.]
AYES
[11.56 p.m.


Alldritt, Walter
Forrester, John
Mendelson, John


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerry
Millan, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Freeson, Reginald
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bence, Cyril
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Moyle, Roland


Bishop, E. S.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Oswald, Thomas


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Boyden, James
Hamling, William
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Brooks, Edwin
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pentland, Norman



Haseldine, Norman
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hazell, Bert
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Probert, Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Hilton, W. S.
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carmichael, Neil
Hoy, James
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William




Rowlands, E.


Coleman, Donald
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Small, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Start, David (Roxburgh)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taverne, Dick


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Loughlin, Charles



Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Luard, Evan
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lubbock, Eric
Tinn, James


Davies, Rt. Hn Harold (Leek)

Urwin, T. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Varley, Eric G.


Dell, Edmund
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dempsey, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dewar, Donald
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunnett, Jack
Mackie, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ells, John
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


English, Michael
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Ennals, David
Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Manuel, Archie
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marks, Kenneth



Fernyhough, E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Neil McBride.




Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bitten, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Birch Rt. Hn. Nigel
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Black, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Marten, Neil
Roebuck, Roy


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Maude, Angus
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mikardo, Ian
Ryan, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
More, Jasper
Silvester, Frederick


Eyre, Reginald
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, John (London & W' minster)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipsw'ch)
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Edward M. (C'gow, Cathcart)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Norwood, Christopher
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Hastings, Stephen
Peyton, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hay, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sir Douglas Glover and




Mr. Victor Goodhew.

SCOTLAND (SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to try to scrutinise the Scottish Education Department's rôle in the provision of school playing fields. If I start with the particular case of St. Columba's Roman Catholic Primary School at Bathgate, it is not so much to try to identify how an unsatisfactory situation has come about as to ask what can be done to ensure that it does not repeat itself.
The facts are now familiar to my hon. Friend. St. Columba's opened in February, 1967, and at that time it was thought that the playing fields, which were not ready when the school opened, would soon be ready. It now looks as though they will not be ready until at least August, 1969. On 26th February I put a Written Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, asking
…what advice his Department gives local authorities to encourage them to have playing fields for new schools available to coincide with the opening of the school.
My right hon. Friend replied:
This is so obviously desirable that I do not think education authorities require advice about it.
Obvious or not, my impression, and a rather informed impression, is that, whereas the situation is by no means typical, that of St. Columba's at least does show that playing fields are not ready at the time new buildings are completed.
I also asked my right hon. Friend
…if he will give details of the information regarding costs made available by West

Lothian County Council to his Department of the playing fields of St. Columba's Roman Catholic Primary School, Bathgate.
He replied:
The estimated cost of the playing field submitted in 1964 was £3,092. In 1967, after the school had been opened, it became clear that additional work would be needed because of difficult conditions encountered in part of the playing field. I understand that this work was later undertaken at a cost of about £1,800.
This escalation in costs is of the percentage that we normally associate with the aircraft industry and not with school building.
I also asked my right hon. Friend
…what advice he has given to local authorities in relation to the inclusion of penalty clauses in agreements between local authorities and contractors in the provision of school playing fields.
He replied:
Authorities have been recommended to include in building contracts generally a liquidated damages clause providing for the reimbursement of identifiable losses if delay occurs.
I should like to know how often the liquidated damages clause has been used and whether, on reflection, my hon. Friends think that this form of penalty works satisfactorily.
Again, on this point, I asked my right hon. Friend
…if he will outline his cost control system for the construction of school playing fields.
He replied:
The School Building Code requires education authorities to submit the estimated costs and plans of school playing fields for approval."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 309, 308, 309–10.]
What progress-chasing does the Department do once approval has been given?
I am also bothered about the whole question of the rôle of the inspectorate


and about what is called its "readily available technical advice ". I was told by the Minister
Largely through the Inspectorate, problems such as this can be dealt with on a day-to-day basis by discussions between the education authority and the Inspectorate and also formally in discussions between the authority and the Department as a Department. I do not think that there is any difficulty in the procedure, whether formal or informal, for dealing with a matter of this sort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 4th February, 1969; c. 99.]
I have been informed, however, that only once since the opening of this school, on 20th February, 1968, has an inspector visited the school. Mr. Burnett, of the architects Alison & Hutchison, has told me that the Department
… will simply not come out.
Whose fault has this been? Was it the fault of the Scottish Education Department, the West Lothian County Council, Alison & Hutchison, or the sub-contracting architect, Collett from Lonehead? Did the fault lie with Harrisons, the main contractors, or was it a combination of faults on behalf of two or more of these parties? It is clear that the buck in this kind of situation must stop somewhere, for there was no correct grading and investigation into the problems of top soil.
Having mentioned that case, of which I have given the Department much notice in recent weeks, certain conclusions must be drawn, and I do this in question form. Should not my hon. Friend reflect on his relations with contractors? Would it not be sensible to talk in terms of a round-table conference with big contractors since perhaps the laying down of playing fields, which requires much expertise, can be done only by really big firms? If this is the case, might not it be wise for the Government to select two, three or four of the major Scottish contractors by which such work would be done?
On 26th February I put another Written Question to the Minister and asked my right hon. Friend:
…what discussions have taken place between his Department's technical officers and large contractors on the general problems of laying out playing fields in the last 12 months; and if he will name the contractors.
The Secretary of State replied:
None, but the Department's technical officers have at times discussed specific cases with contractors. Detailed advice about the laying out of playing fields is available to

contractors in the Department of Education and Science Building Bulletin No. 28, and this is thought to cover most of the problems that experience suggests are likely to arise.
If that was not a complacent Answer, perhaps it was a bit self-satisfied. I want the Department to play a more positive rôle in this respect.
On the subject of school playing fields, more attention should be given to both indoor facilities—I appreciate the expense involved—and all-weather pitches, and I am not naive about the expense involved in these, either, particularly since in Questions I recently drew this matter to the attention of the Minister responsible for sport.
Again, on 26th February, I put a Question to the Secretary of State asking
…if he will give details of the improvements in the design of playing fields in the last five years initiated by central government"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1969; Vol. 778 c. 309.]
Again, reference was made to the Department of Education and Science Bulletin, 1966, on playing fields and hard surface areas providing guidance based on developments since the previous decision of 1955. A great deal more can be done to find some standardised all-weather pitch at reasonable cost. Again I emphasise that this involves cooperation by big contractors, rather than the contrary point of view held by many of my hon. Friends that there should be some sort of national playing fields corporation. I do not favour that proposition.
My hon. Friend has previously argued that it might not be an ideal situation to tie youth clubs to schools in order to save expense because those who have left school perhaps do not want to return there. Both on financial grounds and on the proposition that the situation and the whole attitude to school has rather changed in the last 10 years, I invite him to reconsider this judgment and to bear in mind that there is a strong feeling now that it is quite legitimate to attach youth facilities to schools.
My hon. Friend should perhaps reflect, certainly when the Royal Commission on Local Government Report is published, whether small authorities have the cost control mechanism necessary for the provision of sports facilities, both indoor and outdoor. Perhaps one of the main purposes of this debate is


to ask him to review his own control of cost machinery inside his Department, because although the Scottish Education Department does many things extremely well and is a Department to be proud of, I have yet to be convinced that the cost control machinery is all that it might be. I understand that this raises the whole question of the relationship between central and local government.
On a previous occasion my hon. Friends have been asked what study they have made of international experience in this sphere. Part of my dissatisfaction arises from having taken football teams abroad and having seen, seven or eight years ago, what can be done, for example, in Western Germany and other parts of Europe. There is a feeling that many countries do things so much better than we do in the provision of sports facilities. I think it worth using the time of the House to draw attention to this matter.

12.17 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has on other occasions recently raised some of the matters that he has been talking about. I am glad to go over some of them again. Perhaps I may deal with what he said in the reverse order to that which he used because if I explain the general background coherently what happened in the particular case of St. Columba's, Bathgate, will become rather clearer.
Perhaps I may start by explaining the general system of school building control at central government level. The general system I describe applies in the way I shall outline to the construction of playing fields. In 1967 the Secretary of State made new regulations, the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations, to govern the general requirements and standards to be applied to schools. At the same time he published the new School Building Code setting out in some detail the forms to be submitted and the procedures to be followed by education authorities to obtain his approval to their proposals.
The aim of these new regulations and code was to replace the detailed over- 
Sight previously maintained by the Department by a more flexible system which would give authorities greater freedom—and, therefore, greater responsibility—in designing their schools to meet the needs of a period of experiment and advance in educational methods and practices. At the same time, however, it was obviously necessary for the Secretary of State to retain certain controls at key points in individual projects. It will make the position clearer if I describe what these control points are.
First, there is the approval in principle stage, at which the Secretary of State approves the need for a school and the size and type to be provided. At this point the Secretary of State also approves any proposals to include social and recreational facilities of the kind my hon. Friend has mentioned.
The second approval stage is at the site stage, at which the Secretary of State ensures that the site for a school meets the "minimum area" requirements of the regulations. The third stage is the approval of sketch plans and estimated costs, at which the Secretary of State satisfies himself that the plans conform to the requirements of the regulations and that the estimated costs are acceptable. The fourth stage is the approval of tenders. This is a stage which comes into operation where tenders are in excess of the approved estimated costs. In that case, the Secretary of State's approval is required.
Even that brief outline of the procedure demonstrates that the Secretary of State, through his Department, is interested at a number of points in the control of projects, and particularly in the actual cost concerned. Therefore, there is not any question of the Secretary of State under the new procedure giving up completely his former responsibilities and taking no interest in these very important matters. What is new in the present procedure is that a good deal more flexibility and responsibility is allowed to the education authority.
The Secretary of State's rôle in providing advice and guidance in the design and planning of schools through Her Majesty's Inspectors, architects and quantity surveyors becomes even more important. Perhaps I should make it clear that if architects, quantity surveyors or


professional staff of that type are required we have the resources of the Scottish Development Department. It is not a question of the Scottish Education Department doing this separately. We have the full resources of the Scottish Development Department in this matter.
Advice and guidance in the design and planning of schools is also provided through a number of formal documents, such as the Educational Building Notes produced by the Scottish Education Department and, in the case of playing fields particularly, through Bulletin No. 28 issued by the Department of Education and Science. This bulletin is not a brief document which does not go into any of the detailed proposals which can be involved in the provision of playing fields. It is a very detailed document running to 84 pages and containing a tremendous amount of detail. I believe that this document covers the range of problems which are likely to be met, at least in normal circumstances and in some abnormal circumstances as well, in the provision of playing fields. I could not guarantee that every circumstance is covered there, but the document gives a fairly comprehensive cover of the type of problems which are likely to be met.
Apart from that, guidance is available in design matters generally to education authorities at any time. Circular No. 654 issued in August, 1967, with the new School Premises Regulations and School Building Code, has a section on design guidance making that point particularly clear. I quote a short passage from it, because it demonstrates the kind of relationship between the central Department, on the one hand, and the education authority, on the other:
It is the Department's aim to reduce the amount of architectural effort taken up by oversight of the planning of individual projects so that more effort may be devoted to the production of design guidance available to all.
Authorities will be free to continue, where appropriate, to consult the District Inspector and the Department's architect for advice on the preparation of a schedule of accommodation, architect's brief and sketch plans…
The various documents which are provided for in the School Building Code are normally channelled through the local Her Majesly's Inspectors, so that on the spot we have the opportunity of having the inspector's advice on the proposals as they come up to the tender stage.
Now so far as playing fields specifically are concerned, the School Building Code requires education authorities at the sketch plan and estimated cost stage, the third stage I mentioned earlier, to provide details of the type and number of pitches and other facilities provided, and also to submit a contoured plan showing the layout of the playing field, details of the costs of construction, layout and planting, levelling, excavation and filling and drainage works, as well as specifying the buildings to be erected and their cost. These are examined by the Department's specialist advisers before approval to ensure that the proposals are reasonable and the estimated costs acceptable.
But the responsibility for seeing that the plans are implemented—and this is the point which I think my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about—and that the costs are kept under control is that of the authority. This has always been so, even under the previous more detailed procedure. So, so far as the control of the project is concerned, once final approval has been given, the responsibility is the authority's. That is where the buck stops, in the phrase which my hon. Friend used.
There is no doubt about this, and the education authorities accept that responsibility. It is for them to progress chase, as my hon. Friend said. It is for them to see that the work is carried out satisfactorily by the architects, the surveyors, and the contractors they employ, whether they are employing their own architects or whether, as in the case of St. Columba's, they have gone to an outside firm. I have no evidence generally that authorities are not vigilant in seeing that this oversight of projects is carried on during the whole process of the project, and, of course, it is very much in the interests of the education authorities that they should do so. I think we must allow a certain degree of trust at least to them, as responsible bodies, and accept that if they are left to do a job they will do the job adequately, as in my experience they do.
That is why the Department as such does not have these relations with contractors which my hon. Friend mentioned. Neither individually nor generally do we have relations with contractors because the contractual relationships


are essentially between the education authority and the contractors rather than with the Department in matters of this sort. But all the advice is available to contractors as well as to architects, and we make a point of ensuring that the Building Notes of the Department are made known to the people responsible for carrying out school building projects.
So far as St. Columba's is concerned, when the sketch plans and estimated costs were submitted in 1964 approval was given to the cost of £3,092 for the playing field. Tenders for the school as a whole, including the playing field, were approved in October, 1965. In August, 1967, which was five months after the school was opened, the Director of Education wrote to the Department to say he had been informed by the architects for the school that extremely difficult conditions had been encountered at the south-west corner of the grass playing pitch which made it impossible for the area to be cultivated as proposed.
He put three proposals to the Department for putting matters right, and asked which the Department would be prepared to approve: (1) to tarmac the area at an estimated cost of £8,600; (2) to provide extra drainage and form a blaes playing area at an estimated cost of £6,700; and (3) to install further field drainage to enable special machinery to be put on to lightly cultivate the area and sow grass at an estimated cost of £250.
The choice was between quite expensive projects on the one hand and a very cheap one on the other. After consulting our technical advisers, we informed the authority that for the time being remedial measures should be restricted to alternative (3) to see whether that would work. In the event, that was not successful, and the playing field, as my hon. Friend said, was not ready when the school opened. Grass seed was first sown in the summer of 1967, and the difficulties due to the peat in the south-west corner came to light, as I have said. Subsequently, the authority called in two experts to advise it. One was from the East of Scotland College of Agriculture, one of the regular advisers to the county council, and the other was an expert on peat.
It is worth making the point that, apart from the advice which is available from the Department directly, the Departmental advisers themselves can draw on outside sources for advice. It is open to an authority as well to take in any kind of outside advice which it thinks may be relevant in the particular case. Many authorities do this, calling on the S.C.P.R., the Sports Council, or whoever it may be. There is advice available outside Government circles as well, and it is perfectly appropriate for an authority to take it.
The two experts to whom I have referred recommended that the peat should be dug up and a blaes surface used for the effective part of the playing field. This was done in the summer of 1968, at a cost of about £1,800. I understand that the headmaster of the school is now said to be reasonably satisfied with the playing field. Although there are other areas around the school where conditions are still unsatisfactory, I do not think they are of direct relevance to the point which my hon. Friend has raised.
It is a little unfair to say that the £1,800 is an increase in costs over the original figure of £3,092 which I mentioned. It is not an escalation of costs in the normal sense; it is putting right a defect which was not expected at the time when the original estimates of cost were submitted. It is not always profitable in a case of this sort to look, as my hon. Friend did, at the question of whose fault it was that things did not go as well as they might have done. Inevitably in operations of this sort there are occasions when problems come to light which were not expected at the beginning of the project, and I do not believe that any system of relationships between the Department, on the one hand, and education authorities, on the other, can ever obviate circumstances like that arising.
Although what has happened in this case is, plainly, not the most fortunate of circumstances, I certainly would not call it in aid as any sort of criticism of the arrangements, and it does not invalidate the general philosophy of the relationship between the central Government and the education authorities which I described earlier.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has given me a detailed and courteous answer. May he not reflect—I do not ask for an immediate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Press will wish to hear what is said. Will the hon. Gentleman please speak up?

Mr. Dalyell: May my hon. Friend not reflect that, had there been three or four contractors who had the expertise, these problems would have been anticipated?

Mr. Millan: I do not believe that that is a practical proposition, and I should regard it as undesirable, too, that we should adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion that only a few contractors in Scotland ought to carry out this kind of work. Our experience of playing field construction is not such as could lead me to believe that anything like that is necessary. In any case, I do not think that even doing that would necessarily avoid the sort of problem which we had at St. Columba's.
Turning to the other matters which my hon. Friend mentioned, I agreed with several of the points he made, for example, about indoor facilities. He will be aware of the games hall programme, a new development in 1968, which will help to increase indoor facilities for games in a way which the conventional gymnasium to which we are accustomed in schools cannot do. I am glad to say that authorities generally are interested in the games hall concept, and I

hope to see a considerable development of it in new schools and extensions to existing schools in the years to come.
I do not take a dogmatic view about youth facilities attached to schools. The important need is that we increase the number of youth facilities and the extent of them as rapidly as we can. I am glad to say that a good deal of progress has been made to that end in the last year or two.
Next, my hon. Friend referred to the need for all-weather surfaces. Obviously, there is a considerable case for these in Scotland, with our weather conditions. However, as my hon. Friend knows from correspondence and other contact that he has had with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science, one of the difficulties here is that some of the all-weather surfaces are extremely expensive compared with the conventional grass surface, and they could not be adopted on anything like a wide scale without involving us in expense which would, I think, be unjustified.

The debate having continued for half an hour, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER suspended the sitting of the House at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock till Ten o'clock this day, pursuant to Standing Order.